Adelberg v. Adelberg
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8087
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Former wife, age 59, and former husband, age 60, sought dissolution; trial addressed alimony and income imputation.
- Former wife owned PR/marketing firm, paused it during marriage, later restarted; former husband retired early with severance and later started a consulting business.
- Court valued assets, awarded permanent alimony to former wife, and denied attorney’s fees; remanded as necessary.
- Vocational evaluator testified former wife could earn $40k-$50k annually, which court considered in alimony decision.
- Trial court found former wife lacked employability skills, and that former husband could cover needs; on appeal, income imputation and asset income were challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not imputing income to the former wife. | Husband contends wife was employable and jobs were available. | Wife argues she is not employable; reliance on promise not to work is insufficient. | Court reversed and remanded for income imputation. |
| Whether income from non-marital assets and retirement accounts should be included in income. | Husband asserts IRA and other assets generate income to be included. | Wife contends assets are not income sources or are non-marital. | Court reversed and remanded to include IRA and non-marital assets as income. |
| Whether sale proceeds of the Maine home and related assets should be considered income. | Husband argues proceeds or future income from sale should be considered. | Wife maintains sale proceeds are not income-producing. | Court remanded to determine treatment of sale proceeds and potential investment income. |
| Whether interest from non-marital accounts should be considered income. | Husband argues such interest falls within income definition. | Wife argues non-marital assets should not be income sources. | Court held that such interest must be included in income. |
| Whether the denial of reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence was proper. | Husband contends reconsideration should have been granted. | Wife/Respondent argues motion properly denied. | Concurrence suggests reconsideration should have been granted; majority remand covers related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall-Beasley v. Beasley, 77 So.3d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (income-earning capacity is a factor in alimony)
- Green v. Green, 126 So.3d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (income imputation when spouse can earn more with best efforts)
- Schram v. Schram, 932 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (imputing income where capable but not employed)
- Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So.3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (consider qualifications and community earnings)
- Niederman v. Niederman, 60 So.3d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (include retirement funds and other assets as income)
- Suit v. Suit, 48 So.3d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (blurred lines on income from sale proceeds and home purchase)
- Levine v. Levine, 29 So.3d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (income from sale proceeds when assets are used to buy a home)
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2000) (income includes interest from non-marital accounts)
- Middeton v. Middleton, 79 So.3d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (imputing income even without actual employer hire)