At first glance, Harris v. Harris looks unremarkable.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in a single paragraph. No explanation. No analysis. Just “affirmed.”

For most people, that would be the end of the story.

But buried beneath that brief ruling is a lengthy dissent by one judge—and that dissent tells a very different story. For divorce and family-law clients, especially those dealing with military pensions, it is worth paying attention.

Here’s why.

What the Case Was Really About

Kristina Harris and Jermaine Harris were married for more than ten years while Mr. Harris served on active duty in the U.S. military. During the marriage, a substantial portion of his military retirement pension accrued.

Military retirement earned during a marriage is marital property under Florida law. That is not controversial. It has been settled law for decades.

Yet the trial court refused to divide the pension at all. The reason given was a “lack of competent, substantial evidence” about its value.

The result? One spouse kept 100% of a marital asset worth thousands of dollars per month, while the other spouse received none of it.

The appellate court affirmed that result without explanation.

Judge Smith dissented—and that dissent reads like a roadmap for how this issue may change in the future.

Why Dissents Matter (Even When the Losing Side Loses)

In law school, students are taught that dissents are not just disagreements. They are often invitations.

They invite future courts to rethink an issue.
They invite lawyers to make better arguments.
They invite legislatures to clarify the law.
And sometimes, they become the majority view later.

That is exactly what Judge Smith’s dissent does here.

The Core Point of the Dissent

Judge Smith’s central point is simple:

A trial court cannot refuse to divide a known marital asset just because one party failed to provide a perfect valuation.

Florida law already provides ways to divide military pensions without expert testimony, actuarial reports, or complicated present-value calculations. Courts are allowed—and sometimes required—to award a percentage of future retirement payments.

In other words: “We don’t know the exact dollar value” is not a valid excuse to award zero.

The dissent relies heavily on existing Florida statutes and appellate cases that say exactly that.

Why This Matters to Real Clients

This case highlights a very real risk in divorce litigation:

If a spouse controls the information about a retirement plan—and refuses to cooperate—the other spouse can be unfairly punished.

In Harris, the dissent points out that the husband repeatedly refused to release his military records and was even held in contempt. Under the trial court’s approach, that obstruction worked in his favor.

Judge Smith’s dissent argues that Florida law should not reward that behavior.

Instead, the burden should be on the spouse who owns the pension to prove what portion is non-marital. If they do not, courts should presume the pension is marital and divide it accordingly.

That approach already exists in most Florida appellate districts. The dissent criticizes one district’s older, minority rule that places the burden on the non-owning spouse—often the spouse with less access, fewer resources, and less leverage.

Military Families Should Pay Special Attention

Military divorces raise unique issues:

• Pensions often begin paying after the divorce
• Federal rules govern how benefits are divided
• Survivor benefits (SBP) can be critical to long-term security
• Disability pay and retirement pay are treated differently

Judge Smith’s dissent carefully explains how Florida courts are supposed to handle these issues and why failing to address them explicitly creates serious inequities.

He also notes something many clients miss: if a pension is treated as income for support purposes but not divided as property, the math becomes distorted. Proper pension division affects alimony and child support too.

Will This Dissent Become the Law?

No one can say for sure.

But this dissent is well-researched, firmly grounded in existing statutes, and aligned with how most Florida appellate courts already view pension division. It also highlights a practical injustice that trial judges and future appellate panels may find increasingly difficult to ignore.

Dissents like this often resurface later—quoted by lawyers, cited by judges, and sometimes adopted outright.

At a minimum, it gives family-law attorneys a powerful blueprint for future cases.

The Takeaway for Divorce Clients

If you are divorcing and a retirement account, pension, or military benefit is involved:

• Do not assume “we don’t have the numbers” means you get nothing
• Do not assume the other spouse’s non-cooperation helps them
• Do not assume a short appellate decision means the issue is settled forever

Sometimes, the most important part of a case is the part where a judge says, “This isn’t right.”

That is exactly what happened in Harris v. Harris.

And for clients navigating complex financial issues in divorce, that dissent may matter far more than the one-paragraph affirmance above it.