Hornyak v. Hornyak
48 So. 3d 858
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Husband and wife were married 14 years with two children; dissolution proceedings followed.
- Trial court found a gray area marriage (no presumption for or against permanent alimony).
- Wife trained as massage therapist; could earn about $25,000 initially and $40,000 later; underemployed.
- Husband earned a substantial salary from Volvo Finance; trial court imputing wife income at $25,000 led to alimony decisions.
- Equitable distribution left the marital home to wife and most retirement funds to husband, plus $500 equalization payment; taxes on retirement withdrawals not considered.
- On rehearing, court later amended to reverse bridge-the-gap alimony and remand for re-evaluation of imputed income and child support; final disposition affirmed in part and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputed income for the wife at trial | Hornyak contends $25k imputed income was too low. | Hornyak argues income could be higher but court should defer; no necessity to increase. | Reversed on bridge-the-gap, affirmed in part; remanded for recalculation of imputed income. |
| Bridge-the-gap alimony duration | Three-year bridge-the-gap was excessive given wife’s earning potential. | Court found need to transition through employment; three years appropriate. | Abused discretion; bridge-the-gap award reversed. |
| Equalizing payment of $500 | Equalization payment incorrect given net asset split. | Court intended equalization based on assets. | Error; set aside; equalization payment reversed. |
| Treatment of husband's income including bonuses | Bonuses should be included as regular income; final judgment misstated. | Error harmless; bonuses were part of income. | Misstatement deemed harmless; bonuses properly considered in income. |
| Tax impact of retirement assets in distribution | Tax penalties should be considered in distribution. | Assets could be used via loans; no liquidation required. | Not an abuse; tax consequences not required to be addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (regular and continuous bonuses must be considered in income)
- Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (bonuses may not be regular and continuing)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (criteria for determining need in alimony)
- Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (statutory factors for alimony; 61.08(2) considerations)
- Wofford v. Wofford, 20 So.3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (gray area marriages and alimony presumptions)
- Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So.2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (imputing income based on earning potential and history)
- Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (bridge-the-gap appropriate when rehabilitative need exists)
- Rojas v. Rojas, 656 So.2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (income disparity considerations in permanent alimony)