The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that trial courts have the authority to award prejudgment interest in marital property disputes. This decision, made on July 9, 2026, affects divorce proceedings across the state, allowing for a more equitable division of assets. The ruling clarifies how courts can handle financial matters during divorce, particularly regarding the timing of asset distribution.
The case, Scott Aron Stewart v. Mishelle Addys Perdomo Vindel (Docket No. SC2024-0428), began when Scott Stewart filed for divorce from Mishelle Perdomo in 2018. After an uncontested judgment dissolved their marriage, several issues, including the division of marital property, remained unresolved until 2022. The former wife, Perdomo, sought prejudgment interest on her share of the marital assets, arguing that delays in the distribution were unfair.
The trial court initially denied her request, stating it would be inequitable to charge Stewart for delays caused largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. Perdomo appealed this decision, leading to a review by the Third District Court of Appeal, which found merit in her arguments and ruled that the trial court's denial lacked sufficient evidence.
The Third District acknowledged a conflict with a previous ruling from the First District Court of Appeal, which had determined that prejudgment interest was not permitted in equitable distribution cases. This earlier case, Iarussi v. Iarussi, argued that the Florida statute governing equitable distributions did not mention prejudgment interest and implied it was not allowed.
In its ruling, the Florida Supreme Court sided with the Third District's interpretation. The court stated, "We disagree" with the First District's conclusion, emphasizing that the statutory authority to award prejudgment interest exists within the broader context of equitable remedies available to trial courts. The court highlighted that the equitable-distribution statute explicitly allows for remedies to achieve fairness between parties.
The justices noted that prejudgment interest serves as an equitable remedy, aimed at making an aggrieved party whole. The court explained that while prejudgment interest is not automatically granted, it can be awarded based on the specific facts of a case. The ruling emphasized the need for trial courts to consider the circumstances surrounding each case when deciding on such awards.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future divorce proceedings in Florida. It establishes that trial courts can use prejudgment interest as a tool to ensure fairness in the distribution of marital property. This decision may lead to more equitable outcomes for individuals who experience delays in receiving their rightful share of marital assets.
Moreover, the ruling sets a precedent that aligns with the majority view among Florida's district courts, which have permitted prejudgment interest in similar contexts. The court's decision also serves to clarify the conflicting interpretations of the law, particularly between the Third and First District Courts of Appeal.
Looking ahead, the trial court in this case will need to reconsider Perdomo's request for prejudgment interest based on the new ruling. The court must evaluate whether the circumstances justify such an award and whether it would serve to achieve equity between the former spouses.
The ruling can potentially be appealed, but it is expected to influence how future divorce cases are handled in Florida. As the legal landscape evolves, this decision may prompt further discussions about the equitable distribution of marital property and the role of prejudgment interest in divorce proceedings.