her all of the items in storage, resulting in an unequal distribution, was justified because she had paid the costs to store the items, and testified that their total value was less than half of the storage costs. While the goal of equity and justice is certainly a factor to be considered in constructing a distribution, it is not the only factor, nor does the statute provide that it should carry more weight than the other enumerated factors. See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Rather, the statute provides that an unequal distribution can be made if it is justified after “all relevant factors” have been considered, including the factors contained in section 61.075(l)(a)-(j). See Boutwell, 920 So.2d at 158; see also Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So.3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), reh’g denied, (<HOLDING>). In the Final Judgment section entitled
holding that a trial judge should not consider a spouses anticipated social security benefits as a factor in distributing the marital assets holding that trial courts must consider the ten factors listed in section 610751 when crafting an unequal distribution of marital assets holding wife was not prejudiced by the trial courts refusal to consider the tax consequences of assets awarded to her in part because it did not affect the overall property distribution holding that the trial court must consider these factors in denying appellants petition to transfer prior to trial holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate