ANEMEY K. HUERTAS DEL PINO v. CARLOS E. HUERTAS DEL PINO
229 So. 3d 838
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Long-term marriage dissolved; Wife (62) appealed final judgment awarding alimony after trial in Palm Beach County.
- Wife had been a stay-at-home mother with minimal formal education (GED) and limited recent work history; last earned $12/hour in California but voluntarily left that job two months before filing the petition and moved to Florida.
- Wife testified she wanted full-time work, had applied with no responses, and believed Florida wages would be lower due to her age.
- Wife was eligible for $640/month Social Security if she applied now but chose to defer to age 65 to receive about $900/month later.
- Trial court found Wife voluntarily underemployed, imputed earnings of $10/hour full-time, and additionally imputed the $640/month Social Security as current income when calculating alimony.
- Fourth District reversed the portion imputing deferred Social Security benefits and remanded for recalculation of alimony without including unpaid/deferred SSA benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may impute Social Security retirement benefits as current income when a spouse is eligible but has not applied and is deferring benefits to receive larger payments later | Social Security not yet received is not current income; deferral is a rational, prudent strategy to increase future benefits and thus should not be imputed | Eligibility indicates available income; imputing potential government benefits is proper when assessing earning capacity and ability to pay alimony | Reversed: court erred to impute deferred SSA benefits absent evidence that benefits would be identical if taken earlier; deferral to increase benefits is not automatic voluntary reduction in income and should not be imputed here |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Leonard, 971 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (review standard for income imputation)
- Lamont v. Lamont, 851 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (Social Security payments may be considered income when received)
- Moore v. Moore, 619 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (deferring pension/benefits to increase future payments is a prudent strategy and not necessarily subject to imputation)