Stephens & Stevens Marital & Family Law

Stewart v. Vindel, No. SC2024-0428
Florida Supreme Court — July 9, 2026
Equitable Distribution / Prejudgment Interest / Section 61.075

The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court does have discretionary statutory authority to award prejudgment interest in equitable distribution when necessary to do equity between the parties. Prejudgment interest is not automatic, and no party is entitled to it merely because distribution is delayed. But it is available as an equitable remedy under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, depending on the facts of the case.

The former husband filed for dissolution in 2018. The marriage was dissolved by uncontested judgment nine months later, but the trial court reserved jurisdiction on equitable distribution, alimony, and fees. The equitable distribution issues were not resolved until 2022. The court valued the marital assets as of the date of filing, but denied the former wife’s request for prejudgment interest on her share of the assets from the petition date through distribution, reasoning that much of the delay was caused by the pandemic.

The Third District reversed, finding the trial court’s stated basis unsupported. The Florida Supreme Court approved the Third District’s decision and disapproved Iarussi v. Iarussi, 353 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), to the extent Iarussi held prejudgment interest is never available in equitable distribution.

The Supreme Court focused on the broad equitable language in section 61.075. The statute provides that equitable distribution remedies are “in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties.” The Court concluded that this language is broad enough to include prejudgment interest where equity requires it.

The Court rejected the argument that because section 61.075 expressly authorizes interest on installment payments after judgment, the statute implicitly prohibits prejudgment interest before judgment. The postjudgment-interest provision addresses a narrow circumstance: installment payments after equitable distribution has been ordered. It does not operate as a comprehensive prohibition against all other forms of interest.

The Court also rejected the idea that prejudgment interest is incompatible with equitable distribution because marital property is jointly owned until judgment. As the Court recognized, one spouse may have practical control, access, or use of marital assets while the other spouse is deprived of those benefits during the pendency of the case. In that circumstance, prejudgment interest may be an appropriate equitable tool.

Holding: A trial court has discretionary authority under section 61.075 to award prejudgment interest to achieve equity in distributing marital property.

Important limitation: Prejudgment interest is not automatic. The requesting party must show facts justifying the remedy, such as deprivation of access to significant marital property, delay that produces inequity, or one party’s exclusive use or control of assets pending distribution.

Practice point: This case is a big deal for delayed equitable distribution trials. If assets are valued as of an earlier date and one spouse has had exclusive use, control, income, or benefit from those assets while the other spouse waits years for distribution, counsel should affirmatively plead and prove prejudgment interest as an equitable remedy. Conversely, the opposing party should develop evidence explaining delay, access, offsets, interim distributions, or other circumstances showing that prejudgment interest would overcorrect rather than do equity.