Drdek v. Drdek
79 So. 3d 216
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Former spouses divorced March 16, 2005, with a marital settlement agreement (MSA) providing permanent non-modifiable alimony and a waiver of rights to life insurance, pension, IRA, 401(k), profit sharing, and retirement benefits.
- Husband began receiving social security after the divorce; wife, who has disability, sought alimony via contempt filings in 2005.
- Magistrate Joy Shearer found husband not in willful contempt, concluding social security benefits are not subject to alimony under the MSA.
- Magistrate Kirigin rejected the law-of-the-case doctrine and relied on Logue v. Logue to potentially override prior rulings, but no objections were raised to Kirigin’s report and Judge Berger approved it.
- Question arose whether a successor judge may overrule a predecessor’s order; the trial court expressed that such overruling would be improper, and the appellate court ultimately addressed law-of-the-case and Groover v. Walker principles.
- On appeal, the court affirmed in part and remanded in part to determine whether husband could pay alimony from assets other than income from life insurance, pension, IRA, 401(k), and retirement benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case applicability | Law-of-the-case should govern and sustain Kirigin’s report. | Law-of-the-case should not bind since it was not remanded; could overrule previous rulings. | Law-of-the-case does not apply here. |
| Authority to overrule predecessor orders | Magistrate/kirigin can overrule prior orders to avoid injustice. | A successor judge cannot correct errors of law by predecessor. | Groover principle prevents overruling predecessor orders; cannot overrule. |
| Remand for assets to satisfy alimony | Former husband may have other assets to satisfy alimony. | Limitations on income streams should control alimony; no further assets identified. | Remand to determine ability to pay from assets beyond listed income sources. |
| Scope of MSA waiver | MSA waivers apply to income flows for alimony, not just property. | MSA only waives property rights, not income for alimony. | MSA waives property rights; does not foreclose income-based alimony. |
| Overall disposition | Affirm the magistrates and remand for further proceedings. | Adopt the trial court’s rulings; finalize contempt/collection. | Affirmed in part; remanded in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logue v. Logue, 766 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (law-of-the-case limitations; manifest injustice as exception)
- Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956) (successor judge cannot correct errors of law of predecessor)
- Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (respect for prior appellate determinations; uncertainty if overturned)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) (alimony and equitable distribution considerations)
- Collado v. Pavlow, 951 So.2d 69 (Fla.5th DCA 2007) (standard of review for trial court adoption of magistrate's report)
- Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla.2001) (law-of-the-case doctrine definition and scope)