Cissel v. Cissel
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9602
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Marital dissolution after 22 years; final judgment requires husband to pay $3,000 monthly permanent alimony, $1,652.92 monthly child support, own share of private school tuition, and 60% of wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.
- Husband appeals challenging trial court’s income findings; wife cross-appeals alleging the alimony award is too low.
- Trial court used average earnings of $18,109 gross monthly income based on 14 months prior to hearing; undisputed business expenses >$2,000 per month were not deducted.
- Court treated longevity bonus and restricted stock in January–February 2009 paystubs as recurring earnings, which the opinion finds erroneous.
- Alimony determinations must be based on net monthly incomes available to the parties, per Fla. Stat. § 61.08(2)(i) and supporting case law.
- Marital standard of living (~$20,000/month) funded in part by a sign-on bonus; court acknowledges this is not a reliable sole guide where living beyond means.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether income for alimony should be net, not gross. | Cissel argues net income should be used and business expenses deducted. | Wife argues the court properly considered available income under §61.08 and related precedent. | Income must be net; remand to recompute. |
| Whether the court properly characterized bonuses/stock as recurring earnings. | Cissel contends bonuses/stock were not guaranteed recurring income. | Wife asserts all pay components were properly included as earnings. | Bonus and restricted stock should not be treated as recurring earnings; remand. |
| Whether the trial court adequately applied §61.08(2) factors with findings. | Cissel asserts the court failed to make necessary factual findings on §61.08 factors. | Wife contends the relevant factors were properly considered. | Final judgment must include §61.08 findings; remand for reconsideration with net incomes. |
| Whether the alimony, child support, tuition, temporary support, and attorney’s fees should be reconsidered on remand. | Cissel requests recalculation based on corrected net incomes and evidence. | Wife agrees issues require review but in light of corrected incomes. | Remand ordered to reconsider with net incomes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2005) (net income required for alimony when determining available funds)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (alimony considerations; general approach to support awards)
- Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So.3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (business expense reimbursements cannot inflate income for alimony)
- Lift v. Lift, 1 So.3d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (requirement of factual findings supporting alimony decisions)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (marital standard of living not dispositive when parties lived beyond means)
- Eaton v. Eaton, 16 So.3d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (life insurance/security provisions must be supported by need and ability to pay)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (public policy considerations related to financial provisions in marriage dissolution)