## Facts

- James White (husband) and Barbara White (wife) were married for about 23 years before James filed for dissolution of marriage.
- James filed a financial affidavit estimating total marital assets at approximately $8.5 million and reporting annual income of about $185,000.
- Barbara was unemployed and told the court she had an inoperable brain tumor; she claimed the marital estate was closer to $20 million and said James controlled access to the parties’ financial records.
- During trial, James admitted he had not disclosed a $1 million deposit from the sale of the parties’ businesses and that he had at least two additional bank accounts that were not revealed to Barbara or the court.
- The trial court entered a final judgment that divided the marital estate equally and, based on James’s litigation misconduct and nondisclosure, ordered James to pay Barbara’s attorney’s fees.
- The trial court denied Barbara any alimony.
- James appealed aspects of the equitable distribution and related financial rulings; Barbara cross-appealed, challenging the denial of alimony and parts of the distribution.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in equitably distributing the marital estate (including rejecting James’s claimed nonmarital or special equity interests in certain assets based on the evidence and credibility determinations).
2. Whether the trial court’s classification and valuation of particular assets were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
3. Whether the trial court had authority to order attorney’s fees and related remedial measures as a sanction for James’s failure to disclose marital assets and accounts.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying alimony in a long-term marriage where the wife was unemployed, seriously ill, and claimed need, and the husband had the ability to pay.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the final judgment, including the trial court’s equal distribution of the marital estate and its handling of disputed ownership claims where the trial court did not credit James’s testimony.
- The appellate court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Barbara as a sanction based on James’s nondisclosure of the $1 million deposit and additional bank accounts.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of alimony and remanded for the trial court to reconsider alimony under the statutory factors and the evidence of Barbara’s health, employability, and need, and James’s ability to pay.
- The appellate court also remanded for any necessary additional findings or corrections tied to specific disputed financial items to the extent the record required clarification or support.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court in a dissolution case may reject a party’s testimony on contested financial issues based on credibility, even if that testimony is not directly rebutted.
- A spouse asserting that property is nonmarital, or that he or she is entitled to a special equity-type distribution, bears the burden to prove the claim with competent evidence.
- Equitable distribution and alimony rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings and valuations must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
- Alimony determinations require consideration of statutory factors, including the parties’ financial resources, earning capacities, and the receiving spouse’s health and ability to be self-supporting; an equal distribution does not by itself resolve the need for support.
- Trial courts may award attorney’s fees based on litigation misconduct, including concealment or nondisclosure of assets that increases the other party’s fees and costs.

## Conclusion

White v. White affirmed most of the trial court’s distribution of a high-asset marital estate and upheld fee sanctions after the husband admitted undisclosed accounts and a $1 million deposit, but reversed the complete denial of alimony to an unemployed wife suffering from an inoperable brain tumor and remanded for a proper alimony determination and any needed related findings.


White v. White, 965 So. 2d 164 (2007)