Conlin v. Conlin
212 So. 3d 487
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties: Floyd Conlin (former husband, appellant) and Stephanie Conlin (former wife, appellee) following dissolution of marriage.
- Trial court awarded former wife permanent periodic alimony of $4,750/month and entered a final judgment of dissolution.
- Trial court noted former husband’s income as approximately $150,000/year but relied on figures from his financial affidavit showing $10,385/month (gross $124,620/year); bonus (~$30,000) was not included on affidavit.
- Former husband challenged the alimony award, arguing the court based ability to pay on gross rather than net income.
- Former husband also testified he incurred a $12,900 Parent PLUS loan for the parties’ daughter; the trial court failed to classify or distribute that loan as marital or nonmarital.
- Appellate disposition: court affirmed dissolution generally but reversed the alimony award and equitable-distribution findings and remanded for specific net-income findings and classification/distribution of the Parent PLUS loan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony award was supported by husband’s ability to pay | Husband: award based on gross income; trial court must use net income to determine ability to pay | Wife: trial court found husband had ability to pay (pointing to $150,000 figure) | Reversed — trial court must base alimony on net income and make specific findings on ability to pay |
| Whether trial court properly calculated husband’s income | Husband: financial affidavit shows gross income; bonus not included; unclear net computation | Wife: trial court’s stated "true income" ~ $150,000 supports award | Reversed/remand — record does not clearly show calculations or that net income was used |
| Whether Parent PLUS loan was properly characterized and allocated | Husband: loan exists ($12,900) and its status (marital/nonmarital) was disputed and must be identified | Wife: (implicitly) trial court need not separately address or considered it in final judgment | Reversed/remand — trial court failed to identify/value/distribute the loan as required by statute |
| Whether the trial court’s final judgment contained required equitable-distribution findings | Husband: final judgment lacked clear findings identifying marital vs nonmarital assets/liabilities | Wife: court provided general findings and ordered distribution | Reversed/remand — statute requires specific written findings identifying assets/liabilities and allocation; remand for compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (two primary elements for permanent periodic alimony: need and ability to pay)
- Cleary v. Cleary, 872 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same two-element framework for permanent periodic alimony)
- Moore v. Moore, 157 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (alimony must be based on net income available to the party)
- Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court must determine ability to pay using net income)
- Rentel v. Rentel, 124 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reverse where record does not show alimony was based on net income)
- McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (meaningful appellate review requires findings on how trial court determined income)
- Wolf v. Wolf, 979 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (trial court must identify and value marital and nonmarital assets/liabilities before distributing)
- Embry v. Embry, 650 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (section 61.075 requires setting apart nonmarital assets/liabilities prior to equitable distribution)