229 So. 3d 892
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Rhonda Arlene Brady (Former Wife) appealed from the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Guy Anthony Brady (Former Husband).
- Trial court awarded Former Husband $800/month permanent periodic alimony and $22,400 in retroactive alimony (28 months at $800/month).
- Trial court ordered Former Wife to maintain $500,000 life insurance as security for alimony and to pay $5,000 of Former Husband’s attorney’s fees.
- Court performed equitable distribution but made a mathematical error when calculating the equalizing payment between the parties.
- Former Wife challenged the alimony calculation (gross vs. net income), life-insurance findings, attorney-fee award, and the equalizing payment amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony awards were properly calculated | Brady argued court based awards on gross income; should use net income and make findings on need/ability to pay | Trial court relied on gross income and awarded alimony and retroactive sum | Reversed as to alimony; remanded to determine monthly net incomes and make findings on need and ability to pay for both prospective and retroactive alimony |
| Whether requirement to maintain $500,000 life insurance was supported | Brady argued court failed to make required findings on insurability, cost, affordability, and necessity | Trial court ordered $500,000 policy as security without those findings | Reversed as to life-insurance requirement; on remand court may order insurance but must make statutory/findings to support it |
| Whether $5,000 attorney’s fees award was justified | Brady argued no findings on need/ability or on reasonable hourly rate and hours; award improperly equals amount billed | Trial court awarded fee based solely on Former Husband’s testimony he owed $5,000 | Reversed as to attorney’s fees; remand for findings on need/ability and factual support for the fee amount if fee award is appropriate |
| Whether equitable distribution equalizing payment was correct | Brady argued the court’s equalizing payment was mathematically incorrect | Trial court ordered Former Wife pay $28,407.27 to equalize distribution | Reversed in part: payment was erroneous; correct equalizing payment is $14,203.64; final judgment must be amended accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilliard v. Gilliard, 162 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (alimony-payor’s ability should be based on net income)
- Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 116 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (net income, not gross, for alimony ability-to-pay)
- Motie v. Motie, 132 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (trial court must make findings on need and ability to pay for retroactive alimony)
- Bracero v. Bracero, 849 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (requirements for ordering life insurance as security for alimony)
- Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (life-insurance findings required)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (life-insurance security standards)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (court must support attorney-fee award with factual findings beyond amount billed)
- Galligar v. Galligar, 77 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (consideration of equitable distribution and income equalization before awarding fees)
- Smith v. Smith, 39 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (mathematical errors in final judgment requiring correction to effect intended equal distribution)