Goodman v. Goodman
2D15-2640
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Married ~16 years; Sean as primary breadwinner; Kimberly filed for dissolution in 2013 seeking custody and support.
- Final dissolution awarded Kimberly durational alimony $6,500/month for eight years; imputed need $10,000 with $3,500 met from non-Mr. Goodman sources.
- Trial court relied on Mr. Goodman’s reported 2013 income of $277,000, which allegedly included stock options.
- Stock options awarded to Goodman vesting pre- and post-petition raised potential double-counting as income and as marital assets.
- Final judgment contained no explicit findings distinguishing stock options as income versus assets; equity distribution schedule referenced a separate schedule not attached.
- This appeal/criss-cross appeal challenges alimony, child support, and distribution, and includes a related partition action dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stock options—income vs. assets—finding deficiency | Goodman lacking explicit findings | Goodman contends options properly allocated | Reversed; remand for findings on income/asset treatment |
| Retroactive alimony and child support lack of findings | Goodman argues retroactive relief warranted | Goodman argues no basis for retroactivity | Remanded to determine need and ability to pay retroactively |
| Imputed income and trust income inclusion | Goodman contends imputed/trust income miscalculated | Goodman argues income should include imputations and trust income | Remanded for recalculation including imputed and trust income |
Key Cases Cited
- Seither v. Seither, 779 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stock options cannot be income if already assets (and vice versa))
- Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986) (income vs. assets distinction for stock options)
- Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requires explicit rationale for alimony income determinations)
- Doganiero v. Doganiero, 106 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (meaningful review requires explanation of income/asset classifications)
- Pavese v. Pavese, 932 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (remand to allocate and value marital stock option portions)