For decades, Florida divorce litigation has been framed by a single, powerful idea: trial judges have broad discretion to craft a fair overall result, and appellate courts usually will not disturb that result unless it is unreasonable. That principle traces directly to Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).

But discretion is not a blank check. In Waite v. Milo-Waite, 358 So. 3d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), the Fourth District drew a clean boundary line that matters to any client heading into a divorce involving a settlement agreement, a pretrial stipulation, or contested claims of “hidden” assets: the judge’s sense of equity cannot override the parties’ contracts or the issues the parties agreed would (and would not) be tried.

This is the modern, practical update to Canakaris in the settlement-driven era of Florida family law.

I. THE BIG PICTURE: CANAKARIS STILL SETS THE FRAMEWORK, BUT WAITE POLICES THE LIMITS

Canakaris remains the foundational case for two propositions that still drive outcomes today:

1. Domestic cases are not reducible to rigid formulas; trial courts have multiple tools (property awards, different forms of alimony, fee-shifting, etc.) to reach an overall equitable scheme.
2. Appellate review of true discretionary decisions is deferential: if reasonable judges could differ, reversal is usually inappropriate.

Waite does not reject that framework. Instead, it emphasizes an equally important counterweight: courts cannot use “equity” as a reason to disregard what the parties actually agreed to or what they actually stipulated would be litigated.

In plain English: if you and your spouse sign a written agreement resolving property issues, or you jointly define the issues for trial, those documents become the guardrails. Waite enforces those guardrails.

II. WHAT HAPPENED IN WAITE: A “PARTIAL SETTLEMENT” AND A TRIAL THAT DRIFTED

In Waite, the parties entered into (1) a parenting plan and (2) a partial marital settlement agreement (PMSA) intended to be a final settlement of their property rights and obligations, while leaving alimony and child support to be determined later.

The PMSA contained language commonly found in family cases:

• A mutual acknowledgment that each party was satisfied with the other’s disclosures and (to some extent) waived further inquiry; and
• A penalty-style clause providing that if any marital property had been “willfully concealed or undervalued,” the offending party would owe the other 50% of the full value.

At trial (which was supposed to address child support and alimony), the former wife alleged that the former husband had “concealed” an attorney’s fee payment received during separation. The trial court treated it as “willfully concealed or undervalued” property and ordered it divided, and it also made findings that conflicted with the parties’ pretrial income stipulations and imposed a 70%/30% allocation of certain child-related expenses despite a plan providing for pro rata sharing.

The Fourth District reversed and remanded for recalculation and correction.

III. THREE PRACTICAL RULES FROM WAITE THAT CLIENTS SHOULD CARE ABOUT

A. A JUDGE MAY ENFORCE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT—BUT MAY NOT REWRITE IT

Waite reiterates a contract-based principle that comes up constantly in divorces resolved “in part” by agreement: marital settlement agreements are interpreted like other contracts, and courts are not permitted to rewrite clear terms even if the judge believes a different outcome would be “fair.”

That matters because most divorce cases today involve some combination of negotiated agreements and litigated leftovers. If the agreement is carefully drafted, it becomes an asset: it narrows risk and reduces the range of outcomes.

B. PRETRIAL STIPULATIONS ARE NOT “SUGGESTIONS”—THEY ARE BINDING LIMITS ON WHAT GETS TRIED

One of Waite’s most client-relevant points is procedural, not emotional: if the parties limit the issues for trial through a pretrial stipulation (or joint pretrial statement), issues not included are typically waived.

In Waite, the appellate court emphasized that the “concealment” dispute was not pleaded as an issue and was not listed in the joint pretrial statement as an issue to be tried, and the record did not support treating it as tried by implied consent.

For clients, the takeaway is simple: the pretrial documents can decide what the case is “about.” If those documents are sloppy, the trial can drift. If those documents are tight, they can prevent drift and reduce surprise.

C. “HIDDEN ASSET” CLAIMS REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT—KNOWLEDGE AND DEPLETION MATTER

The Fourth District also reversed the trial court’s “willful concealment/undervaluation” finding because the evidence showed the wife knew the payment existed and it had already been spent (including on family-related expenses), making the concealment theory unsupported on that record.

This is important because “you hid money” accusations are common, emotionally charged, and often used as leverage. Waite stands for the proposition that courts still have to stay tethered to proof and to what was actually at issue for trial.

IV. ALIMONY MATH: WAITE (AND POST-WAITE CASES) EMPHASIZE NET INCOME, NOT JUST GROSS NUMBERS

Waite also addressed errors in alimony-related calculations and remanded for recalculation. In doing so, the court relied on the principle that an alimony determination becomes facially erroneous when the court fails to assess need and ability to pay using net incomes (a proposition the Fourth District has framed through earlier precedent).

The “net, not gross” concept has been repeated across districts, especially in support calculations and related financial assessments.

A practical point for clients: financial affidavits, supporting schedules, and proof of recurring expenses are not paperwork theater. They often determine the “inputs” that drive the judge’s conclusions on need, ability, and the reasonableness of an award.

V. THE LEGISLATIVE BACKDROP: FLORIDA’S 2023 ALIMONY REFORM CHANGED THE MENU, NOT THE NEED FOR DISCIPLINE

Florida’s Legislature enacted major alimony reforms effective July 1, 2023 (SB 1416 / Ch. 2023-315), restructuring alimony law and aiming to create more predictability, including changes that affect what courts may award and what findings are required.

Even in that updated statutory landscape, Waite’s core messages remain highly relevant:

• Whatever the statute permits, the trial judge still must apply it to the evidence presented.
• Whatever discretion remains, it still must operate within the boundaries of the parties’ enforceable agreements and binding stipulations.
• Appeals will still differentiate between (1) an error of law (for example, disregarding a contract term or a binding stipulation) and (2) a discretionary call made within the lawful framework.

In other words, the law can change the categories and factors, but it does not eliminate the importance of (a) drafting and (b) procedure.

VI. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR REAL CLIENTS: HOW CASE STRATEGY CHANGES WHEN WAITE IS IN PLAY

If you are approaching a divorce in Florida—especially one involving children, variable income, self-employment, or partial settlements—Waite suggests a strategy that is less about theatrics and more about control:

1. TREAT SETTLEMENT TERMS LIKE YOU ARE WRITING THE “OPERATING SYSTEM” FOR THE REST OF THE CASE
   If you resolve equitable distribution by agreement, draft it precisely, anticipate disclosure disputes, and define remedies carefully. Courts will enforce clear terms, but they will not rescue ambiguous ones.
2. LOCK DOWN THE PRETRIAL STATEMENT
   Many reversals come from the trial departing from the stipulations. The pretrial statement should clearly identify what is disputed and what is not. Waite shows that specifying one income dispute can implicitly confirm other income figures as undisputed—and binding.
3. BUILD FINANCIAL PROOF THAT SURVIVES APPELLATE REVIEW
   If your income is complex (bonuses, fluctuating receipts, self-employment, one-time fees), you need documentation and a narrative that explains what is recurring, what is one-time, and what is already spent or allocated.
4. UNDERSTAND THAT “FAIR” IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR AUTHORITY
   If the judge’s ruling conflicts with the settlement agreement or with binding stipulations, Waite provides a cleaner appellate pathway than a generic “abuse of discretion” argument.

CONCLUSION

Canakaris still tells us why Florida trial judges have room to craft outcomes that fit real lives instead of rigid formulas. Waite tells us where that room ends: the judge cannot ignore the parties’ contracts, cannot treat waived issues as if they were tried, and cannot make key financial findings untethered from binding stipulations and competent evidence.

In modern Florida divorce practice—where most cases are hybrids of agreement plus litigation—Waite is a reminder that disciplined paperwork and disciplined procedure often matter as much as the equities of the story.