An account balance falls, a spouse becomes suspicious, and a spreadsheet arrives with the difference labeled “dissipation.” That is an opening allegation, not a completed analysis. Money can leave an account without leaving the marital balance sheet, and an investment can lose value without anyone withdrawing a dollar. The forensic accountant’s job is to explain the change before counsel argues what it means.
An account decline is a question
Florida’s equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, lists the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the petition is filed, or within two years before filing, as a factor for the court to consider. Timing and intentional conduct are therefore built into the inquiry. A disappointing financial result is not, by itself, waste.
The statute identifies intentional dissipation as a distribution factor. It does not itself prescribe a single calculation method or a fixed dollar-for-dollar remedy. What the finding does to the distribution is a legal question that follows the financial work, not one the schedule answers.
In Dravis v. Dravis, the Second District held that the trial court could not include depleted marital assets in its equitable-distribution calculation without record evidence and specific findings of misconduct. The same decision identified a transferred account balance that had been counted twice. Both points matter when a claim begins with a disappearing balance.
My task is to identify the transactions, trace their destinations, assess the explanations, and calculate amounts under stated assumptions. Counsel addresses whether the property is marital, whether the conduct meets the legal standard, and what remedy the evidence supports.
That division keeps a financial schedule from promising more than the records can deliver. A bank statement can establish that a payment cleared. It usually cannot establish, on its own, whether the payment served the marriage.
Separate spending, transfers, and losses
The first step is a reconciliation. Beginning value, deposits, withdrawals, investment gains or losses, fees, and ending value have to fit together. If they do not, the analysis is missing something or is comparing figures measured on different bases.
Transfers deserve early attention because they explain a large share of apparent losses. Money moved to another identifiable account may still exist. The receiving account has to be examined before the transfer can be called a depletion.
Ordinary household spending needs context. Housing, taxes, medical costs, and other documented expenses explain withdrawals without establishing misconduct. Spending after separation is not waste merely because one spouse no longer approves the budget.
A poor investment result is its own category. Market losses can reduce marital wealth substantially, but a decline alone does not show intentional dissipation. The purpose of the transaction, the circumstances at the time, and the contemporaneous communications matter more than hindsight.
Payments to unfamiliar people or entities warrant investigation. They may be gifts, legitimate obligations, purchases, or transfers through an intermediary. The payee name narrows the inquiry; it does not finish it. Earlier similar payments and any supporting agreement help distinguish a recurring obligation from an unusual diversion.
Cash withdrawals are particularly limited evidence. They establish access to cash at a time and place and generally nothing about its ultimate use. A withdrawal marked “unexplained” should stay unexplained until additional evidence supports a more definite classification.
Illustration: a $190,000 decline becomes a $40,000 question
Assume a hypothetical account begins at $300,000 and ends at $110,000. The $190,000 decline first appears in a proposed schedule as marital waste. A transaction review produces something more useful.
The records show $40,000 transferred to another account, where it remains identifiable; $60,000 of supported ordinary household expenses; and $50,000 of investment losses. They also show $50,000 paid to a third party, of which $10,000 was later returned.
The reconciliation holds: $300,000, less $40,000, $60,000, $50,000, and $50,000, plus the $10,000 returned, equals $110,000. Every dollar of the change now has a category, even though one category still needs an explanation.
The net questioned third-party payments total $40,000. Assume the other categories raise no separate concern on the available evidence. That leaves $40,000 to investigate, not a supported conclusion that the entire $190,000 decline was dissipation.
Even the $40,000 is not automatically recoverable waste. The next questions are the recipient, the purpose, any benefit received, the timing against the statutory period, and the marital character of the funds. The returned $10,000 reduces the questioned amount; it does not explain the original payment.
The $40,000 sitting in the receiving account belongs on the asset schedule. Counting it there and also treating the transfer as money that vanished would count the same dollars twice, which is the error Dravis identified. Reconciliation is less dramatic than accusation and considerably more useful.
Quantify the conduct without counting it twice
A transaction schedule should show the date, source account, recipient, amount, stated purpose, corroborating records, and open questions for each item. It should also show reimbursements, recoveries, and any asset acquired with the money. Those details let another reader reproduce the calculation.
Purchases set a particular trap. If questioned funds bought an asset that still exists, the analysis has to account for that asset and its current treatment. The original expenditure and the remaining property should not casually become two separate losses.
Related transfers belong in one money trail. Funds may move from savings to checking, then through a payment application, before reaching the ultimate recipient. Adding every step measures the journey rather than the amount involved.
Mixed-purpose transactions require an allocation the evidence supports. A trip may have family and individual components; a payment may cover more than one obligation. The accountant explains the basis for the split instead of assigning the whole charge to whichever category helps one side.
Benefit received deserves its own column. A payment that discharged a joint obligation, funded a child’s expense, or bought an asset the family still uses is different from a payment that left the marriage with nothing in return, even when both were unusual and undisclosed. The schedule should record what the marriage received for each questioned dollar, or that nothing was found, because that fact bears directly on whether the spending was waste.
Timing should be mapped to the legal issues counsel identifies. The statutory period frames the claim, but earlier records may still explain ownership, the source of funds, or a recurring pattern. A legal time period is not a reason to ignore relevant background.
The final calculation should distinguish identified transactions, net questioned spending, and amounts analyzed under counsel’s legal assumptions. Those figures can differ. A schedule is stronger when its labels describe what has actually been established.
Build the proof before naming the number
The useful production request follows the money and the alleged conduct:
- Complete statements and transaction data for the source accounts and the relevant receiving accounts.
- Check images, wire details, payment application records, and documents identifying recipients.
- Investment activity showing purchases, sales, fees, distributions, and market changes.
- Invoices, contracts, receipts, and communications explaining the purpose of questioned payments.
- Evidence of assets acquired, amounts returned, reimbursements, and other recoveries.
- A timeline identifying filing, separation, the alleged conduct, and relevant account changes.
- Counsel’s instructions on marital classification, legal assumptions, and the claimed remedy.
Documents should be organized so the schedule points to the supporting page or transaction. A reader should not have to search an entire bank production to verify one line. Missing periods and unavailable recipient records should be disclosed.
Competing explanations can be tested without choosing one prematurely. If one spouse calls a payment a loan repayment and the other calls it a gift, look for the original advance, the repayment terms, and a consistent record. An explanation that cannot yet be verified should not acquire certainty through repetition.
The accounting conclusion also stays separate from any proposed distribution adjustment. The net amount questioned does not, by itself, determine how responsibility is allocated or how other assets are adjusted. That step depends on legal findings and the distribution as a whole.
Prove the transaction, investigate the purpose, and calculate the net effect. A persuasive dissipation analysis shows what happened to the money and why the remaining questions matter. It does not ask a falling balance to do the work of evidence.
This article is general information, not legal or financial advice. Every case turns on its own facts and on the law of the jurisdiction.
Have a matter that raises this question?
Start with a conflict check.
Samons Harris 