191 So. 3d 995
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Final judgment of dissolution between Edward K. Henry (husband/appellant) and Suzanne W. Henry (wife/appellee); appeal from Palm Beach County circuit court.
- Trial court adopted wife’s proposed final judgment (modified) and awarded 60/40 timesharing in wife’s favor — that portions affirmed on appeal.
- Trial court miscalculated both parties’ incomes by annualizing/adjusting incorrectly; wife’s correct gross annual income is $44,104.32 ($3,675/mo) and husband’s correct gross annual (without bonus) is $52,577.43 ($4,381/mo).
- Child support, prospective and retroactive alimony, and retroactive child support were calculated using the incorrect incomes and incorrect retroactive timeshare/month count (awarded for 17 months instead of 15).
- Trial court did not make required specific findings of need and ability to pay for retroactive alimony or the attorneys’ fees award; no adequate bad-faith findings to justify fee award under inherent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Income calculation for support/alimony | Wife conceded court used wrong income figure; urged correct figures from affidavit | Husband argued trial court’s computation (which removed a bonus) was correct | Court found arithmetic error; set correct gross monthly incomes ($3,675 wife; $4,381 husband) and reversed/supports recalculation on remand |
| Prospective child support | Wife sought support based on higher income used at trial | Husband relied on trial court’s computation | Court held award was abuse of discretion due to incorrect incomes; reversed and remanded for recalculation using corrected incomes |
| Prospective permanent alimony | Wife sought $500/month (as awarded) | Husband contested amount and underlying income basis | Court reversed alimony award as improperly based on miscalculated incomes; remand to recalc and require clearer findings if relying on speculative earning capacity |
| Retroactive child support | Wife sought retroactive support for 17 months using 60/40 split | Husband argued period/timesharing wrong; nights were 50/50 in retro period | Court reversed: retroaward should be 15 months, use 50/50 overnight split for retro period, and recalculated with corrected incomes |
| Retroactive alimony | Wife sought retroactive alimony for 17 months | Husband challenged period and lack of specific findings on need/ability during retro period | Court reversed: remand to determine past need and ability to pay for 15 months and recalc using correct incomes; required specific findings |
| Attorneys’ fees | Wife sought fees; trial court awarded fees without statutory findings | Husband argued fees improper; lack of bad-faith findings | Court reversed fee award: no express bad-faith findings to invoke inherent authority and no section 61.16 need/ability findings; remand to make required findings if fees to be awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Kareff v. Kareff, 943 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (mathematical errors reviewed de novo)
- McKenna v. McKenna, 31 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (child support review standard: abuse of discretion)
- Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (permanent alimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (support calculations must be based on net income)
- Wright v. Wright, 411 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (retroactive child support and alimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Vitro v. Vitro, 122 So. 3d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (retroactive alimony must be based on need and ability to pay)
- Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requirement for specific findings on past need and ability for retroactive alimony)
- Glantz & Glantz, P.A. v. Chinchilla, 17 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (trial courts’ inherent authority to award fees for vexatious or bad-faith litigation)
- Hallac v. Hallac, 88 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (requirements and rarity of inherent-authority fee awards)