When a divorcing couple owns 51% of a business, a trial court errs by assigning 100% of the business debt in equitable distribution to one spouse, at least where that spouse testified a business partner is responsible for the other 49%. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that on October 30, 2026, in Malone v. Malone, No. 5D2025-0653, on appeal from Marion County. Judge Harris wrote the opinion. Judges Eisnaugle and Kilbane concurred.
What was appealed
The former wife appealed the final judgment of dissolution and the order denying her motion for rehearing, reconsideration and to reopen evidence. She raised numerous issues. One was that the trial court failed to properly calculate certain business liabilities, which she said skewed the unequal distribution against her.
The concession
The opinion says the former husband, who appeared without a lawyer, conceded error on this point and agreed the case should be remanded so the trial court could correct “its mathematical error” to reflect the parties’ 51% ownership of the business liabilities.
Business debt in equitable distribution: the holding
The court found it was error to assign 100% of the business debt to the former husband when the parties own 51% of the business and he testified his business partner is responsible for 49% of the liabilities. It remanded for correction and told the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution in light of the change in debt assignment. It found no reversible error in the former wife’s other claims and affirmed on all remaining issues.
What this does and does not mean
The opinion is brief. It does not name the business, state the amount of the debt, or say how the distribution should come out after the change. It does not describe the other claims the former wife raised, so nothing can be drawn from the affirmance of those issues. Because the former husband conceded the point, the opinion contains no analysis of how business liabilities must be allocated in general. The instruction to “reconsider” the distribution does not say the result must change. The opinion is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is decided.
Related decisions: Must a Florida Divorce Judgment Classify Each Debt as Marital or Nonmarital? Yes, the Fifth DCA Held, and Remanded for Findings Can a Florida Divorce Court Award Attorney's Fees for Bad-Faith Litigation Conduct Without Explaining the Amount? No, Says the Fifth DCA
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Malone v. Malone, No. 5D2025-0653 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 30, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.