141 So. 3d 593
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parties divorced after an almost 19-year marriage; Former Husband earned about $200,000/year.
- Former Wife had been a teacher until 2004 and asserts she left work for health reasons and is unemployable; Husband disputes permanent incapacity.
- Competing vocational opinions: Husband’s expert: wage potential $10–$15/hr; Wife’s expert: 100% unemployable due to medical condition and childcare duties.
- Trial court awarded Former Wife durational alimony for 15 years at $4,200/month, finding durational rather than permanent alimony appropriate.
- Trial court found Wife entitled to at least some attorney’s fees, ruled the fees were reasonable, and ordered Husband to pay 50% of her fees; the court made minimal factual findings explaining that split.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether durational alimony was error instead of permanent alimony | Fichtel (Wife): long-term marriage presumption favors permanent alimony given alleged unemployability | Husband: Wife is voluntarily unemployed or capable of working; no medical finding of total incapacity | Court affirmed durational alimony — trial court considered §61.08 factors and sufficiently rebutted presumption of permanent alimony |
| Whether awarding only 50% of Wife’s attorney’s fees was proper | Wife: substantial income disparity warranted a larger (or full) fee award to ensure access to counsel | Husband: trial court may weigh need and ability; did not argue error beyond trial discretion | Reversed and remanded on fees — trial court made vague findings and failed to justify the 50% split in light of income disparity; specific factual findings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hornyak v. Hornyak, 48 So.3d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard of review for permanent alimony award)
- Motie v. Motie, 132 So.3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (presumption that permanent alimony is appropriate for long-term marriages)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (purpose of fee awards is equal access to counsel in dissolution)
- Arena v. Arena, 103 So.3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (trial court must make specific findings to support partial fee awards)
- Margulies v. Margulies, 645 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (reversing partial fee award where wife would have to invade assets but husband could pay fully)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (fee awards governed by need and ability to pay)
- Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So.2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)