Hodge v. Hodge
129 So. 3d 441
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Donald R. Hodge appeals an Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution awarding Appellee Ann B. Hodge $2,500 monthly permanent alimony and distributing marital property.
- Appellant challenges the alimony calculation on three grounds: rental income net of property expenses, investment income from equitably distributed assets, and premarital equity in the Old Dominion property.
- Trial court found Appellant’s monthly rental income from the Old Dominion property to be $1,650 without deducting expenses, and Appellee testified to roughly $825 monthly for taxes, repairs, and upkeep.
- The Amended Final Judgment divided certain investment assets evenly but did not credit investment income from those assets to Appellee under the equitable distribution scheme.
- The court also valued passive appreciation in the Old Dominion property, allocating half to Appellee, and awarded Appellee a share to equalize assets, despite Appellant’s premarital equity.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for revision consistent with clarified standards for income and passive appreciation analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rental income was properly calculated | Hodge argues $1,650 should be reduced by ordinary expenses. | Hodge contends the court properly included gross rent without explicit deductions. | Remand to deduct ordinary expenses; income not supported as $1,650 |
| Whether investment income from equitably distributed assets was attributed to Appellee | Acker requires considering income from distributed assets for alimony. | Court did not include Appellee's earned investment income in alimony calculation. | Remand to include investment income allocated to Appellee |
| Whether premarital equity and passive appreciation were correctly allocated | Appellant asserts premarital equity should reduce Appellee's share of passive appreciation; equalization not permitted. | Lower court allocated half of appreciation to Appellee to equalize assets. | Remand to apply Kaaa analysis; nonmarital portion of passive appreciation must be identified |
| Whether overall income determinations were reliable for alimony | Estimated income over $9,000 for Appellant relies on equitable distribution assets. | Court erred in not revising income estimates after distribution. | Remand to revise both parties’ incomes reflecting equitable distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2005) (case-by-case income determination for income-producing assets)
- McNamara v. McNamara, 40 So.3d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (income from assets reviewed under alimony standards)
- Waton v. Waton, 887 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (income considered in alimony calculations)
- Acker v. Acker, 904 So.2d 384 (Fla. 2005) (all sources of income, including distributed assets, must be considered)
- Lauro v. Lauro, 757 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (consideration of all income sources in alimony determinations)
- Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So.3d 867 (Fla. 2010) (five-step analysis for allocating passive appreciation)
- Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So.3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (nonmarital portion of passive appreciation cannot be increased by equalization)
- Betancourt v. Betancourt, 50 So.3d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (trial court must account for mortgage and utility expenses when adding rental income)