this objective is to grant the custodial parent exclusive use and possession, as opposed to ownership, 3d DCA 1991) (finding that to award wife the sole use and possession of marital home was proper only until the children reached majority). Although section 61.075(l)(j), allows a trial court to consider “[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties,” when fashioning an unequal distribution of marital assets, this provision is not without limitation. The trial court’s concern that the husband’s relative lack of financial responsibility and career growth will, in the future, encumber the title to the marital home is not a sufficient justification for distributing the marital assets unequally. See Horne v. Horne, 711 So.2d 1310, 1311-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). The unequal distribution of marital assets or
holding that in a suit on a sworn account the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments holding that wifes frugality in accumulating a 401k account significantly greater than husbands 401k account was not a sufficient justification under section 61075lj for deviating from equal distribution holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account holding that the rights conferred to a joint account holder by massachusetts statutes and case law in fact give a joint account holder legal title in a joint account holding that fathers investment account with stock brokerage firm was not a multipleparty account available for payment of child support