FL Supreme Court OKs Prejudgment Interest in Divorce Splits

Florida Supreme Court Authorizes Prejudgment Interest in Equitable Distribution

In Stewart v. Perdomo Vindel, the Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts may award prejudgment interest as part of equitable distribution under F.S. 61.075, ending years of appellate authority that treated such interest as off-limits. The decision matters because it gives judges a tool to compensate a spouse for the time-value of marital assets they were kept out of during a long-running case.

The News Hook

For a long time, Florida practitioners operated under a widely followed rule: prejudgment interest generally did not belong in equitable distribution. The reasoning was that dividing marital property is an equitable exercise, not the collection of a fixed, liquidated debt, and prejudgment interest was traditionally reserved for liquidated money claims where the amount owed and the date it became due were both certain.

Stewart v. Perdomo Vindel changes that landscape. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that nothing in Florida's equitable distribution statute forbids a trial court from including prejudgment interest when the facts justify it. In practical terms, a judge dividing a marital estate can now consider awarding interest to account for the period between when one spouse effectively lost the use of an asset and when the final judgment actually distributes it.

This is the kind of ruling that does not make headlines the way a celebrity divorce does, but it can meaningfully move the dollar figures in ordinary Florida cases, especially those that drag on for a year or more.

Legal Implications for Florida Divorce Cases

Equitable distribution in Florida is governed by F.S. 61.075, which directs courts to begin with the premise that the marital estate should be divided equally and then adjust based on statutory factors. Until now, the timing gap between valuation, trial, and final judgment was largely absorbed by the parties. If a spouse controlled a bank account, a business, or rental income for two years while litigation crawled forward, the other spouse rarely recovered anything for that lost time.

After Stewart, that gap becomes something a trial court can address directly. The likely effects include:

• Contested cases with delayed distributions may see interest requests added to the mix, particularly where one spouse had exclusive control of income-producing assets.
• Valuation dates and distribution dates matter more than ever, because the interval between them is now potentially compensable.
• Discovery and record-keeping around who held what, and when, gain importance, since a prejudgment interest claim depends on establishing the timeline clearly.
• Trial courts retain discretion. The Supreme Court authorizing prejudgment interest is not the same as requiring it in every case. Expect judges to weigh it case by case.

It is worth emphasizing what this ruling does not do. It does not raise Florida's filing fees, it does not change residency requirements, and it does not alter the 2023 alimony reforms enacted through SB 1416, which reshaped Florida's alimony framework and eliminated permanent alimony for new cases. Stewart is narrowly about property division, not support.

Florida-Specific Analysis

Florida's equitable distribution scheme already builds in flexibility. Courts can select different valuation dates for different assets under F.S. 61.075(7) when fairness requires it, and they can order unequal distributions when the statutory factors support it. Prejudgment interest now fits alongside those existing tools rather than replacing them.

The practical friction point is proof. To support an interest award, a party generally needs a clear starting point, such as the date a spouse was excluded from an asset or the date the asset's value became fixed, and a clear ending point at final judgment. In a clean, uncontested case where both spouses cooperate and the estate is divided promptly, there is little time interval to argue about, so prejudgment interest is unlikely to be a live issue. The ruling is most consequential in drawn-out, contested litigation.

That distinction is the heart of Florida's uncontested path. When spouses agree on how to divide their property and sign a marital settlement agreement, they control the timeline themselves. There is no multi-year fight over who used what, no contested valuation date, and therefore no meaningful window for prejudgment interest to accrue. A prompt, agreed resolution sidesteps the very problem Stewart is designed to fix.

Couples exploring that route can review our related coverage on how uncontested divorce works in St. Petersburg, what an uncontested divorce with children involves, and uncontested divorce in Orlando.

Practical Takeaways for Florida Residents

Here is what this development means if you are divorcing in Florida or thinking about it.

• If your case is contested and involves valuable assets one spouse controls, ask your attorney whether a prejudgment interest claim under the reasoning in Stewart could apply to your situation.
• Timelines are money. The longer a contested case takes, the larger a potential interest component could become. Delay now carries a clearer financial cost.
• Keep records. Statements, account histories, and business records that establish who held an asset and when will support or defend against an interest claim.
• If you and your spouse agree, an uncontested divorce remains the fastest and most cost-controlled path. When property is divided by agreement and finalized quickly, prejudgment interest is generally a non-issue.
• Do not assume interest is automatic. The Supreme Court authorized it; it did not mandate it. Judges will decide based on the specific facts.

For spouses who agree on the terms of their divorce, our firm handles uncontested Florida dissolutions for a flat $750 attorney fee, the same price whether or not there are minor children. Court filing fees and notary costs are separate. If you want to understand your options, our Ask Victoria assistant can answer questions and point you to the right resources.

For related recent developments in Florida family law, see our coverage of a Florida appellate ruling on child support precision and the reminder that there is no new 2026 alimony formula or time-sharing law.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Florida Supreme Court decide in Stewart v. Perdomo Vindel?

The court held that trial courts may award prejudgment interest as part of equitable distribution under F.S. 61.075. This reversed the prior widely followed rule that treated prejudgment interest as generally unavailable in property division because dividing a marital estate is an equitable exercise rather than the collection of a liquidated debt.

Does this ruling mean I will automatically get interest in my divorce?

No. The Supreme Court authorized prejudgment interest; it did not require it in every case. Whether interest is awarded remains within the trial court's discretion and depends on the specific facts, including how long one spouse was kept from an asset and whether the timeline can be clearly established.

Does this affect uncontested divorces in Florida?

Usually not in any practical way. Prejudgment interest becomes relevant when there is a long gap between when a spouse loses access to an asset and when it is finally distributed, which is a feature of drawn-out contested litigation. In an uncontested divorce, the parties agree on how to divide property and finalize quickly, so there is little or no interval for interest to accrue.

Did this change Florida's alimony or time-sharing laws?

No. Stewart addresses property division only. It does not touch Florida's alimony framework, including the 2023 reforms under SB 1416, and it does not change time-sharing or parenting plan rules under F.S. 61.13 and F.S. 61.046.

What should I do if I think prejudgment interest applies to my case?

Gather documentation showing who controlled the relevant assets and during what period, then consult a Florida family law attorney about whether an interest claim is supported by the facts. Because this is a discretionary award, presenting a clear, well-documented timeline is important.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided by Antonio G. Jimenez, Esq., Florida Bar No. 21022, for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court decisions and their application depend on the specific facts of each case. You should consult a licensed Florida attorney about your individual situation before making any decisions.