Interim Partial Distribution

The “interim equitable distribution” provision of Florida Statute § 61.075 became effective on July 1, 2008. In reviewing the legislative history for the bill (CSSB 1474 (2008)) that enacted the changes to the statute, the House Bill Analyses (four total) simply summarized the changes to the statute and provided no further analysis or discussion as to the application or availability of “interim equitable distribution”.

As for the history of the bill in the Senate, there was only one bill analysis performed. The analysis was conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and notes on page 8 the following:

•  This bill provides that a court may enter an order for an interim partial distribution of assets in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. This may help impecunious spouses from having to liquidate their assets to support themselves during a dissolution proceeding.
•  According to the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, if a court is able to enter an interim order during dissolution of marriage proceedings, it may obviate the need for costly temporary relief hearings.

Research within secondary sources, such as law reviews and journals, brought up one article. The relevant portion of the article states as follows:

•  “Although ‘good cause’ is defined under the express terms of the statute to mean ‘extraordinary circumstances that require an interim partial distribution’ the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ contemplated are not discussed  . . . [R]egarding what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under the statute, it appears likely that a threatened foreclosure or immediate exigent threat of dissipation of assets will qualify . . . It is important to note, though, the key inquiry overlying every decision under this section will be whether the distribution can wait until final hearing or whether the interim distribution will negatively impact the availability of an asset or otherwise cause prejudice to either party in a subsequent claim for support or attorneys’ fees.”

It appears that the application and interpretation of this statute, for now, is limited to the language of the statute itself. Paragraph 5(c) does state that any interim order partially distributing marital assets shall comport with the factors in subsection (1); however, it does not say it must comport with all of subsection (1), namely the premise that distribution must be equal.

As such, it seems from the language and legislative history, that this provision was enacted to helpone spouse in need of early distribution and, therefore, does not obligate the court, once a determination is made to enter an interim distribution based on good cause, to do so equally between both parties. Instead, the partial, early distribution given to the specific party in need will be accounted for in the final distribution, which will begin with the premise of equal division.