Divvying the Bitcoin: Courts Grapple With Cryptocurrency's Fluctuating Value, Costs
"You don't want your client saying, 'Why didn't we do something? It's worth nothing now,'" attorney Nancy Hass said.
February 21, 2023 at 07:17 PM
4 minute read
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.
"I think as practitioners, we have to be aware of this very novel asset and I think that if your client says, 'Look, the bitcoin market is very high right now.' … It may behoove you as the attorney to contact the other counsel and say, 'Maybe we need to move for an interim equitable distribution of this asset so the parties can sell … it at this higher value,'" she said. "If the bitcoin market is very high, maybe it's in the best interest for them to cash out, even if it's during the course of the proceeding, so it doesn't take a wild dive."
This could have broader implications.
Anda O. Malescu, of Malescu Law in Miami, specializes in cryptocurrency, and is not affiliated with this case.
She explained bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, or type of virtual currency, which is classified as a digital asset.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All2,000 Docket Entries: Complex South Florida Dispute Sets Precedent
Second DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readU.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250