Chaired by Lindsay Gunia, Esq. and Yanae Barroso, Esq.

The Equitable Distribution Committee of the Florida Bar Family Law Section is dedicated to all issues regarding the division of marital assets and liabilities in dissolution of marriage proceedings within the State of Florida. Composed of family law practitioners, members of the judiciary, and other family law professionals from around the State, the Committee serves as a key resource in one of the most intricate and consequential areas of family law.

The Committee is working on two focused subcommittees to address emerging and recurring issues regarding equitable distribution. The first subcommittee is examining challenges surrounding the post-filing use of marital funds. The second subcommittee is reviewing and proposing refinements to the portion of the Equitable Distribution statute, which was previously revised to codify the Kaaa v. Kaaa decision.

In addition to the foregoing initiatives, the Committee continues to monitor legislative developments, analyze new case law, address issues within the statute, and contribute to continuing legal education programs for Section members.

If you are interested in joining the Equitable Distribution Committee, please email: equitable@familylawfla.org.

Tech Tip: Guardrails for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

By Matthew Thatcher, B.C.S.

The technology surrounding artificial intelligence has increased substantially in ways that is directly impacting the practice of law. In some ways these changes have been beneficial. But in other ways, the growth of artificial intelligence has created significant problems.

 
In Goya v. Hayashida, a pro-se appellee in an appeal submitted an answer brief that was “replete with and entirely supported by fake cases and legal propositions, presumably generated by artificial intelligence (AI).” 2025 WL 2326544 (Fla. 4^th DCA August 13, 2025) at *2-3. The Goya court declined to impose sanctions on the pro se party while still admonishing the conduct. Id. at *3.

In Clerk of the Court and Comptroller for the 13^th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County v. Rangel, an attorney delegated the drafting of an answer brief to an independent contract paralegal who utilized generative AI in the creation of the brief. 2025 WL 2486314 (Fla. 2^nd DCA August 29, 2025) at *1-3. That attorney failed to adequately review the AI generated brief before submitting it to the appellate court. Id. at *2. The appellant’s reply brief brought to the appellate court’s attention nine misrepresentations of the holdings of cases, ten quotations of language from cases where that text is not in those cases, and citation to one case that did not appear to exist. Id. at *1. The Rangel court referred that attorney to the Florida Bar for sanctions. Id. at *2-3.

The Florida Bar and the Florida courts have attempted to proactively get in front of this issue. On January 19, 2024, the Florida Bar issued Ethics Opinion 24-1, which among other things stressed the need for attorneys to supervise and confirm the accuracy of work performed by generative AI. On August 29, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the comments to rules 4-1.1, 4-1.6, 4-5.1, and 4-5.3 of the Rules Governing the Florida Bar to expressly provide “a warning about the necessity to take care in using generative artificial intelligence.” In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar – Chapter 4, 393 So. 3d 137. 138-139 (Fla. 2024). More recently, the Florida Bar Special Committee on AI Tools and Resources Best Practices Subcommittee published the Florida Bar Guide to Getting Started with AI. See https://www.legalfuel.com/guide-to-getting-started-with-ai/

The proverbial genie is out of the bottle. More and more software platforms are utilizing artificial intelligence. These are tools that can greatly increase the efficiency of our law practices. They help us organize and understand discovery, summarize documents, and improve the presentation of our client’s cases. But no matter how useful, the ultimate responsibility falls upon us as practitioners to make sure that the positions we take and advance are valid, meritorious, and supported by the actual facts and correct law. 

Almost no one handwrites or uses a typewriter to draft a motion or a pleading. These are drafted in computer word processing software because it is more efficient. We SHOULD utilize AI to become more efficient in our practices. But our duty to the court, to opposing parties, and ultimately to ourselves requires that we don’t use it blindly. None of us would blindly trust the initial work product of a law clerk, a paralegal, or recently graduated associate attorney. So why then are practitioners exposing themselves to potential sanctions by blindly trusting the documents and analysis generated by artificial intelligence?

Take advantage of these new AI tools. But also make sure that what you submit in a case has been thoroughly reviewed so that your position is based upon an accurate recitation of facts, an accurate procedural history, and an accurate recitation of the case law and legal rulings supporting your arguments.

Case Law Update

By Cash A. Eaton, B.C.S.


Marin v. Marin, 2025 WL 2922260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

The Marin case involved a post-judgment contempt and enforcement action. The Former Wife initiated a contempt action because the Former Husband failed to maintain a $700,000 life insurance policy. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the Former Husband in willful contempt and ordered that if he couldn't secure the policy within sixty days, a $700,000 money judgment would be entered against him. The money judgment was subsequently entered, leading to the appeal.

On appeal, the Former Husband argued that the monetary sanction imposed was improper because it was not commensurate with the loss actually sustained by the Former Wife. The Appellate Court agreed and overturned the money judgment.

The Appellate Court reaffirmed that when an agreement requires the performance of a specific act, such a requirement can be enforced through contempt. Trial courts have broad discretion in implementing contempt sanctions, but that discretion is subject to restrictions. To that point, contempt sanctions fall within two categories: 1) coercive contempt sanctions; and 2) compensatory contempt sanctions. Coercive contempt sanctions are intended to secure compliance. Compensatory contempt sanctions are intended to compensate for actual losses incurred due to the contemptuous conduct.

The trial court’s entry of the $700,000 money judgment was not coercive in nature, as it did not ensure the Former Husband's future compliance. As this was a compensatory sanction, the Former Wife was required to prove her actual loss, and actual loss cannot be contingent or speculative in nature.

The Appellate Court ruled that entry of the money judgment was improper because the loss was contingent and speculative. The Former Wife’s entitlement to the life insurance death benefit ($700,000) was contingent on the Former Husband predeceasing her, a condition impossible to determine at the time of the hearing.