Stewart v. Vindel: Florida Supreme Court Allows Prejudgment Interest in Equitable Distribution

On July 9, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held in Stewart v. Vindel that trial judges dividing marital property under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, may, in their discretion, add prejudgment interest when needed to reach an equitable result ¹. The Court approved the Third District’s decision in a Miami-Dade case and disapproved the First District’s contrary holding in Iarussi v. Iarussi, which had barred prejudgment interest in equitable distribution ¹. For family law practitioners and mediators, the ruling adds a new variable to cases where the marital estate is valued early and divided years later.

The case

Scott Stewart filed a petition for dissolution in 2018 ¹. Nine months later, the trial court entered an uncontested judgment dissolving the marriage but reserved ruling on equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees and costs ¹. The contested distribution issues were not fully resolved until 2022, and the trial court used the petition’s filing date as the valuation date for the marital assets ¹.

The former wife asked for interest on her share of the assets from the petition date to the date of distribution ¹. The trial court refused, finding it would be inequitable to charge the former husband for delays largely caused by the pandemic ¹. The Third District held that this stated basis lacked evidentiary support and was inconsistent with the purpose of prejudgment interest, and it acknowledged tension with Iarussi ¹.

The holding

Writing for the majority, Justice Grosshans focused on the text of section 61.075. The statute states that its distribution provisions supplement, rather than replace, the court’s other tools “to do equity between the parties” ¹. The Court reasoned that equity runs throughout the statute, including the factors for unequal distribution, interim distributions, the flexible valuation date and the provision on dissipation of assets ¹. Nothing in the statute prohibits prejudgment interest, and the Court described prejudgment interest as an equitable remedy in this setting ¹.

The Court rejected the First District’s view that the statute’s express reference to interest on installment payments implied that prejudgment interest was excluded ¹. It also noted that the First District was the only district court to hold that prejudgment interest is never available in equitable distribution ¹.

The Court was careful about limits. A party is not automatically entitled to prejudgment interest; there must be facts that justify it, such as a spouse being deprived of significant marital property while the case is pending ¹. Even then, the trial court retains discretion to decide whether interest is a fitting tool to do equity ¹. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the request ¹.

The vote was 4 to 1. Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Muñiz, Francis and Sasso concurred, Justice Labarga dissented, and Justice Tanenbaum did not participate ¹. The dissent would have held that because the Legislature provided for postjudgment interest and not prejudgment interest, courts should not supply the missing remedy ¹.

What it changes at the mediation table

The decision matters most where there is a long gap between the valuation date and the actual division of assets ². Practical points for counsel and parties preparing for family mediation:

• Identify who has controlled the assets. The Court’s example of when interest may be appropriate is a spouse deprived of significant marital property during the case ¹. Facts about access and control now carry more weight.
• Quantify the exposure. Commentators have noted that interest across a multi-year delay can materially change an award on a substantial estate ². Both sides should run the numbers before mediation rather than during it.
• Remember it is discretionary. Because an award is not automatic, the risk cuts both ways, which is often the kind of uncertainty that encourages settlement ¹.
• Address interest expressly in the agreement. A marital settlement agreement that is silent on prejudgment interest invites later disputes. Clear language on valuation dates, timing and any interest component reduces that risk.

Tony Roca is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator. Counsel and parties can check his live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide, in English or Spanish.