Ceilia Abramovic v. Dan Abramovic
188 So. 3d 61
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Cecilia Abramovic (wife) and Dan Abramovic (husband) divorced; an Agreed Final Judgment left several issues for trial (equalizing payment, return of personal items, parenting plan).
- Parties agreed on most equitable distribution items but disputed an alleged $15,409 equalizing payment and tax dependency exemption allocation.
- At trial, court found an equalizing payment was necessary and ordered Cecilia to pay $700.41/month for 22 months; original order allowed income withholding on default but was later amended to remove that remedy.
- Court awarded the dependency tax exemption to the husband despite the wife having 235 overnights with the child (husband had 130 overnights) and requesting alternation of the exemption years.
- Wife moved for rehearing; court modified withholding remedy but left payment obligation and awarded fees on enforcement after wife defaulted; wife appealed the dissolution judgment and enforcement order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Abramovic) | Defendant's Argument (Dan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering $15,409 equalizing payment was proper | Wife contended she lacked ability to pay; financial affidavit showed monthly deficit | Husband argued agreed distribution produced a surplus to wife and deficit to him, so equalizing payment required | Reversed: no evidence of wife’s ability to pay and court made no supporting findings; equalizing payment unsupported |
| Whether court could order income withholding to enforce equalizing payment | Wife argued income deduction order inappropriate for equitable distribution | Husband initially sought withholding as enforcement tool | Trial court removed income withholding remedy on rehearing; appellate court agreed withholding was inappropriate for this equitable distribution without findings |
| Whether awarding dependency exemption to husband was proper | Wife argued primary custodial parent presumptively entitled; asked for alternation and conditioning on support compliance | Husband requested exemption (initially asked for alternation) and pays more child expenses | Reversed and remanded: court must condition exemption on husband’s being current in child support and reconsider alternation given custodial time split |
| Whether fees and costs for enforcing equalizing payments were proper | Wife challenged award given she lacked ability to pay | Husband sought fees for enforcing delinquent payments | Reversed: enforcement order and attorney’s-fee award reversed along with unequal equalizing payment because underlying obligation was unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Bell, 68 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA) (standard of review for equitable distribution)
- Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA) (lump-sum equalizing payment allowed only if paying spouse can make payment without substantial economic harm)
- Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA) (same principle re: ability to pay lump-sum equalization)
- Rizer v. Rizer, 691 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversal where record lacked evidence supporting equalizing payment)
- Salazar v. Salazar, 976 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA) (abuse of discretion standard for dependency exemption decisions)
- El-Hajji v. El-Hajji, 67 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA) (dependency exemption may be considered in child support determinations)
- Wamsley v. Wamsley, 957 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA) (custodial parent presumptively entitled to exemptions but may release to noncustodial parent)
- Harris v. Harris, 760 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA) (background on presumptive custodial-parent entitlement to tax exemptions)