JUAN CARLOS JULIA v. MARTHA JULIA
263 So. 3d 795
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Juan Carlos Julia (former husband) appealed the final dissolution judgment and post-judgment orders awarding permanent alimony, child support allocations, retroactive child support, and pension division to Martha Julia (former wife).
- Trial court awarded permanent alimony to wife, set alimony amount based on husband’s gross income, and apportioned regular child support ~60/40 (husband/wife) in a later order.
- Trial court allocated collateral child support (noncovered medical, dental, extracurricular) 80/20 (husband/wife) in the final judgment and later entered a different percentage for regular support without reconciling the two.
- Trial court awarded retroactive child support but the husband argued he should receive credit for mortgage payments he made for the marital home during the pendency of the dissolution.
- Trial court awarded the wife one-half of the husband’s pension without excluding pension accrual that occurred before the parties’ second marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Julia's Argument | Martha's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the statutory finding required to award permanent alimony that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable | Trial court failed to make the required statutory finding | Trial court implicitly justified permanent alimony by award | Reversed and remanded for the required explicit finding under §61.08(8) |
| Whether alimony award was improperly calculated from gross instead of net income | Alimony amount was based on gross income; net income is the proper measure | Trial court used gross income in calculating award | Reversed and remanded for determination of net income and modification if needed (net income governs support) |
| Whether collateral child support was improperly apportioned 80/20 when regular support was ~60/40 | Collateral expenses must follow the same percentage as regular child support absent a logical rationale | Trial court set different percentages without explaining rationale | Reversed portion ordering 80/20; remand to either justify disparity or align collateral split with regular support percentages |
| Whether retroactive child support award failed to consider husband’s mortgage payments during dissolution pendency | Husband paid mortgage for marital home; those payments are in-kind contributions and must be considered/credited | Trial court did not credit mortgage payments in worksheet | Reversed; remand to consider mortgage payments in calculating retroactive support |
| Whether court erred by awarding wife half of pension including amounts accrued before their second marriage | Husband earned pension benefits before marriage; premarital accruals are not marital assets and husband must prove pre-marital share | Trial court awarded one-half without excluding premarital portion | Reversed; remand to determine and exclude pre-marital pension accrual and adjust distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Jordan, 199 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court must expressly find no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable)
- Rentel v. Rentel, 124 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (net income, not gross, is relevant for support calculations)
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (collateral child expenses should be allocated in same percentage as child support absent rationale)
- Demmi v. Demmi, 186 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reapportionment of noncovered medical expenses must match child support shares)
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (error to equally divide collateral expenses when child support percentages are unequal)
- Weaver v. Weaver, 95 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (remand to align collateral expenses with child support shares)
- Bond v. Bond, 224 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (mortgage/housing payments by one party are in-kind contributions for child support purposes)
- Jacob v. Jacob, 26 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (trial court must factor mortgage/utilities/upkeep payments into child support calculation)
- Schafstall v. Schafstall, 211 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (value of mortgage payments must be included as in-kind contributions in income calculations)
- Scott v. Scott, 888 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (premarital contributions to pensions are excluded from marital asset distribution)
- Downey v. Downey, 843 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (only marital portion of pension is distributable)
- Childers v. Childers, 640 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (burden on pensioner to prove portion accrued before marriage)
- Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (error to allocate pension portion that accrued before marriage to other spouse)