Hodge v. Hodge
227 So. 3d 1284
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Long-term (30-year) marriage between Donald R. Hodge (Former Husband) and Ann B. Hodge (Former Wife); both retired and over 70.
- Prior appeal (Hodge v. Hodge, 129 So. 3d 441) reversed parts of the dissolution judgment for miscalculating income for alimony and misapplying Kaaa to determine nonmarital appreciation of Husband’s premarital property (the “Old Dominion” rental property); case remanded.
- On remand, the trial court again awarded Former Wife $2,500/month permanent periodic alimony and one-half of the passive appreciation of the Old Dominion property.
- Husband appealed, arguing the court again misapplied Kaaa in calculating nonmarital passive appreciation and that the court failed to properly determine Wife’s need by understating her investment and social security income and miscalculating incomes for alimony purposes.
- Parties had stipulated to a 6% return on invested assets for income imputation; Wife’s investment assets after equitable-distribution payment were found to total ~$349,894 and she receives ~ $1,000/month Social Security; Wife’s living expenses were listed at about $4,000/month.
- The parties and court agreed the correct equitable-distribution payment to Wife for her interest in the Old Dominion property is $73,645; Husband’s counsel represented he would promptly pay that amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of Kaaa to compute nonmarital passive appreciation of Old Dominion property | Wife conceded correct Kaaa math yields $73,645 due her | Husband argued court misapplied Kaaa and misstated nonmarital share | Court agreed with parties: Wife’s interest is $73,645; remanded with directive to enter judgment for that amount |
| Award and calculation of permanent periodic alimony | Alimony appropriate; trial court found need and awarded $2,500/month | Husband argued Wife failed to prove need; court miscalculated both parties’ incomes by understating Wife’s investment and SS income and misallocating rental income | Court reversed alimony determination and remanded to recalculate both parties’ incomes, reassess Wife’s need, and if needed, determine proper alimony amount |
| Allocation of Old Dominion rental income after payment | Wife would receive one-half passive appreciation and previously had been allocated half rental net income | Husband indicated he would retain net rental income after paying Wife her $73,645 | Because Husband’s counsel represented at oral argument he would pay $73,645 promptly, the rental-income splitting issue was rendered moot |
| Whether court should impute investment income when computing alimony need | Wife relied on stipulated 6% return on investment assets to compute income | Husband disputed the income calculations derived from stipulated return and the trial court’s monthly net income figures | Court instructed trial court on remand to include investment income (using stipulated 6%) and recalculate incomes and Wife’s need before deciding alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2010) (five-step framework for computing passive appreciation and allocation of nonmarital property appreciation)
- Hodge v. Hodge, 129 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (prior reversal for failure to deduct expenses from rental income and to include imputed investment income for alimony calculation)
- Rosecan v. Springer, 985 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (investment income may be imputed to liquid assets when computing alimony)
- Beal v. Beal, 146 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (spouse not required to deplete capital assets to maintain marital standard of living)
- Renfroe v. Renfroe, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (representations made by counsel at oral argument can be binding)