266 So. 3d 1282
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Long-term marriage (23 years) with two children; substantial marital assets including seven residences, three businesses (one owning an airplane), multiple vehicles, and cash accounts.
- Former Wife performed primarily unpaid household and childcare work and had only sporadic, part-time employment; Former Husband managed family businesses and received business distributions in the judgment.
- Trial court awarded an overall equal equitable distribution, gave the businesses and associated debts to Husband, awarded Wife two residences and other assets, and ordered an equalization payment (unchallenged).
- Court awarded Wife $2,000/month permanent periodic alimony, child support (with an attached guidelines worksheet), ordered Husband to pay the older child’s private school tuition unless parties agreed otherwise, and allowed discretion on the younger child’s schooling.
- Trial court ordered Husband to maintain a $750,000 life insurance policy to secure support and directed Husband to pay half of Wife’s claimed $30,500 attorneys’ fees and costs; both parties moved for rehearing and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Former Husband's Argument | Former Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Character/valuation of condominium and allocation of related debt | Condo not marital or valuation incorrect; business should not bear condo debt | (no cross on this point) | Court affirmed condo as marital (cut‑off date is filing date) and valuation within discretion; debt allocation to Husband’s business not an abuse. |
| Allocation of business debts to Husband | Allocation of $92,708 and $87,500 improper and unfair | Court’s distribution was appropriate | Affirmed; allocation to managing spouse permissible under §61.075(1)(g). |
| Equal division of income tax liabilities through 2015 | (challenged by Husband) | Wife argued unequal split may be improper | Equal division affirmed as within the statutory presumption. |
| Division of airplane sale proceeds and subtraction of hangar fees | (challenged by Husband) | Wife challenged subtraction of costs reducing her share | Affirmed; court’s subtraction for sale costs and reimbursement was reasonable. |
| Imputation of Wife’s income for alimony | Argued higher prior income should be imputed ($2,334/mo) | Wife’s employment was sporadic; court should impute only minimum wage | Affirmed imputation of minimum wage given temporary/sporadic employment evidence. |
| Amount of permanent alimony ($2,000/mo) | (challenged generally) | Wife argued award inadequate given needs and Husband’s ability to pay | Affirmed; Wife failed to show award was unreasonable in context of the overall settlement. |
| Child support: incorrect gross incomes and allocation of uncovered medical/dental | Worksheet used wrong gross incomes; allocation of medical should follow support percentages | Parties conceded errors in worksheet and in equal allocation of medical | Reversed and remanded to correct guideline calculations and allocate uncovered medical/dental in same percentages as child support. |
| Private school tuition directive | Husband argued court abused discretion by requiring him to continue paying for older child and failed to account for tuition on worksheet | Wife argued court erred by allowing Husband to discontinue younger child’s tuition | No abuse of discretion; decision‑making shared and remand on support math may correct reported tuition factors. |
| Undifferentiated temporary support ($5,300/mo) | Asked court to delineate portions as alimony vs child support for tax/guideline purposes | Wife conceded delineation required | Reversed and remanded to delineate per Nilsen to ensure child support compliance with guidelines; denial to retroactively reduce support affirmed. |
| Life insurance to secure support ($750,000) | Argued court lacked required findings on availability, cost, and ability to pay | Wife supported security requirement | Reversed and remanded for findings on availability, cost, and Husband’s ability to pay. |
| Attorneys’ fees award (Husband to pay half of $30,500) | Challenged lack of findings on hours, rates, costs, and disparity | Wife argued disparity supports full award against Husband | Reversed and remanded for specific factual findings under §61.16 to support any fee allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1991) (appellate review requires assessing the judgment as a whole for abuse of discretion)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (equitable distribution reviewed in context of overall fairness)
- Cardella-Navarro v. Navarro, 992 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (business debt allocation to managing spouse permissible)
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985) (claim that former spouse was "shortchanged" implicates abuse of discretion review)
- Demmi v. Demmi, 186 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (uncovered medical expenses should be allocated in same percentage as child support)
- Nilsen v. Nilsen, 63 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (undifferentiated support must be delineated for tax and child support guideline purposes)
- Therriault v. Therriault, 102 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (life insurance security requires factual findings on availability and cost)
- Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (same principle on life insurance findings)
- Glasgow v. Wolfe, 873 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (attorneys’ fees under §61.16 require specific findings)
- Street v. Street, 198 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (fee award must be supported by factual findings)
- Brady v. Brady, 229 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (remand required where fee findings are absent)