William Walsh v. Nicole Walsh

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-1053
LT Case No. 2021-DR-000514-A
_____________________________
WILLIAM WALSH,
Appellant,
v.
NICOLE WALSH,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.
Howard Ogle McGillin, Judge.
Clyde M. Taylor, III, of Taylor & Waldrop, St. Augustine, for
Appellant.
Jonathan J. Luca, of Jonathan J. Luca, P.A., St. Augustine, for
Appellee.
December 19, 2025
PER CURIAM.
William Walsh (“Former Husband”) and Nicole Walsh
(“Former Wife”) are parties in this marital dissolution appeal.
Former Husband appeals the trial court’s supplemental final
judgment as well as the order denying his motion for rehearing.
Former Husband alleges that the trial court erred in the valuation

2
of his Fidelity retirement account, in the designation of $60,000 in
funds from Former Husband’s father as a gift instead of a loan,
and in the distribution of Quad Staffing cash. We reverse solely as
to the first issue and remand for the trial court to reconsider the
value of the Fidelity retirement account for equitable distribution.
In general, in order to “include dissipated assets in an
equitable distribution scheme, the court must make a ‘specific
finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct.’”
Schroll v. Schroll, 227 So. 3d 232, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting
Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). A case out
of the Fourth District, Zvida v. Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2013), is instructive. In Zvida, the husband contested the
inclusion of a depleted asset as part of the equitable distribution,
specifically challenging “the fact that the trial court attributed to
him the value of $117,315 for a specific bank account, despite the
fact that the value was only $3,284 at the time of trial.” Zvida, 103
So. 3d at 1055. The Fourth noted that
no testimony was presented with respect to the bank
account except as to the balance of money in the account.
There was no testimony as to how the funds were used or
if the funds were used for a purpose unrelated to the
marriage. Finally, the trial court did not make a finding
of intentional misconduct by the husband related to the
reduced balance in the bank account.
Id. (emphasis added). The Fourth District concluded that “the
inclusion of the depleted asset in the equitable distribution by the
trial court was error.” Id.
Here, the trial court, in review of the affidavits, worksheets,
and testimony, made a determination of an apparently depleted
asset without making a finding of intentional misconduct; instead
the trial court noted it suspected Former Husband may have likely
been part of the cause. The trial court’s determinations here do not
rise to the level of a “specific finding” that the account had
dissipated due to intentional misconduct. Thus, reversal as to this
issue is warranted and a remand is necessary for the trial court to
reconsider the value of the Fidelity retirement account for
equitable distribution.

3
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with
instructions.
MAKAR, HARRIS, and SOUD, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________