157 So. 3d 497
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Married 1983; separated after 28 years; dissolution final judgment appealed by Wife and cross-appealed by Husband.
- Wife: MBA, formerly HR director (income reduced after 2008), employed as adjunct/consultant with 2011 income ~$29,000; owns rental property producing ~$1,082/month.
- Husband: owner of Gardenmasters; 2011 annual income ~$280,000; significant assets (vacation home and vehicles in Costa Rica, airplane, collectible vehicles).
- Trial court found Wife’s reasonable monthly expenses $4,800 (reduced from her affidavit), Wife’s net monthly income ≈ $3,228.58, and awarded permanent periodic alimony of $1,571.44/month.
- Trial court ordered Husband to name Wife as irrevocable beneficiary on a $50,000 life insurance policy to secure alimony.
- Appellate court reviewed adequacy of alimony and the life-insurance requirement and reversed both parts of the final judgment; other issues affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of permanent periodic alimony | Award is inadequate given Wife's needs and marital standard of living; Husband can pay more | Amount reflects trial court’s adjustments to Wife’s expenses and her postseparation earning capacity | Reversed: award inadequate; creates gross disparity and fails to approximate marital lifestyle; remanded for further proceedings |
| Calculation of Wife’s expenses/standard of living baseline | Court should base need on marital standard of living, not postseparation lifestyle | Court properly adjusted overstated expenses to reflect actual needs | Reversed as to reliance on postseparation lifestyle; trial court erred by not tying award to marital standard of living |
| Necessity and factual support for life-insurance security | Life insurance may be appropriate to protect alimony | Trial court required it to secure alimony | Reversed: trial court failed to set forth special circumstances in the final judgment justifying the requirement; remanded for justification |
| (Cross-appeal other claims) | Various trial errors alleged by both parties | Trial court discretion and factual findings supported most rulings | Affirmed in part; only alimony and insurance requirement reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard of review and purpose of alimony)
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (alimony reversed where postaward income disparity was excessive)
- Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (alimony should aim to maintain marital standard of living)
- Laz v. Laz, 727 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversal where incomes were miscalculated and court failed to approximate prior lifestyle)
- Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (error to base need on postseparation lifestyle)
- Pipitone v. Pipitone, 23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (alimony normally terminates at obligor’s death)
- Busciglio v. Busciglio, 116 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (trial court must set forth special circumstances in final judgment to require life insurance)