It's new territory for lawyers in divorce and other cases where bitcoin assets need to be split.

Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal took up the matter, ruling in favor of an appellant seeking clarification on bitcoin division, and answering in part: How does the court treat that asset? What does the court do with a wildly fluctuating asset?

At issue, on appeal, litigant Daniela Souto Coe argued to the appellate court that her now ex-husband, Reinier Nicolaas Rautenberg, should not have gotten an equal amount of bitcoin in their divorce.

Also at the heart of the issue: administrative costs related to the digital currency.

In a myriad of common divorce issues in the appeal was the matter of bitcoin division for the Palm Beach County couple, whose case initially came before Judge Scott R. Kerner.

In finding that the trial court erred, appellant Judge Dorian K. Damoorgian wrote the former wife argued the trial court miscalculated the number of marital bitcoins that were subject to equitable distribution.

"Specifically, she argues that instead of deducting the 1.2 bitcoins—previously awarded to former wife as payment for past-due child support—from the original 10 marital bitcoins and then equally distributing the remaining 8.8 bitcoins, the trial court should have deducted the 1.2 bitcoins from former husband's original share of 5 bitcoins, thus leaving former husband with 3.8 bitcoins, not 4.4 bitcoins."

Also at issue was Coe's argument that the trial court erred in not requiring Rautenberg to reimburse her for half the cost of recovering the bitcoin hard drive, which has been damaged at some point.

The appeals court agreed with Coe on both matters, reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court award Coe the equivalent of $22,954.75 in bitcoin from her former husband's share of the asset as payment for past due child support and that he pay half the cost of recovering the bitcoin hard drive, records show.

Judges Jeffrey T. Kuntz and Robert M. Gross concurred.

Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Scott R. Kerner presided over the lower court decision.

"Bitcoin needs to be treated in the same way that stocks are treated in a divorce because the value of that asset fluctuates, depending on market conditions and obviously bitcoin so much more," said attorney Nancy A. Hass, of the law office of Nancy A. Hass.

She represented Coe. There was no appearance for Rautenberg.

The Fort Lauderdale family law attorney-turned-appellate litigator for family court matters thinks this new litigation is challenging and needs attention.

"I think the court basically is going to have difficulty quantifying it, and really just needs to divide it in kind … just equally divide those [bitcoin assets] so that there isn't a windfall," Hass said.

Hass thinks attorneys need to be aware of what's happening with cryptocurrency in court cases.

"If your client comes to you—and that's when you need to really follow this market (digital currency)—because that may be a very real issue … what if the client comes back to you and says, 'Hey, you know, it was worth $2 million, like a month ago. Why didn't we do something? It's worth nothing now,'" Hass said.