Moore v. Moore
157 So. 3d 435
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Moore appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Roberta Moore, challenging the court's income determination for alimony.
- Roberta, on cross-appeal, argues the court erred by not requiring Moore to maintain life insurance and by the child support amount.
- The trial court set Moore's statutory net monthly income at $23,295, based largely on his Schedule C and 2012 tax return, and did not credit business expenses.
- Evidence showed Moore filed six financial affidavits over two-and-a-half years with income figures ranging from $4,055 to $20,362 after deductions, causing credibility concerns.
- The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by failing to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses, and reversed the financial aspects while affirming the dissolution and stipulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the income used for alimony should reflect business expenses. | Moore contends business expenses reduce available income. | Moore argues the court credibility issues justify not crediting expenses. | Abuse: business expenses must be deducted; remand for net income. |
| Whether the court erred in failing to address life insurance and the amount of child support on remand. | Roberta seeks life insurance maintenance and accurate child support calculation. | Moore maintains no such requirements or miscalculation. | |
| Partially reversed: remand on financial aspects; life insurance and child support to be reconsidered as part of remand. | |||
| Whether the trial court adequately considered evidence of Moore's business expenses and credibility in determining income. | Moore's expenses were substantial and should reduce net income. | Court found expenses grossly inflated but did not credit any expenses. | Abuse of discretion: require deduction of business expenses to determine net income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zold v. Zold, 911 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2005) (income available to spouse governs alimony awards)
- McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (significant income dispute; requires findings on income calculation)
- Cissel v. Cissel, 82 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (income for alimony based on net monthly income)
- Trespalacios v. Trespalacios, 978 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (acknowledges difficulty in arriving at equitable income figures)
- Coppola v. Coppola, 630 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (deduction of ordinary and necessary expenses in income calculations)