Motie v. Motie
132 So. 3d 1210
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties married for over 17 years; two children reached majority before final judgment.
- Former Husband (veterinarian, primary breadwinner) provided most marital income and paid household expenses during separation; Former Wife had limited work history (bachelor’s degree, unpaid work in husband’s office, managed a failing franchise).
- Former Wife filed for dissolution; parties continued living together for some months after filing; marital home sold Feb 2011.
- Trial court imputed $10/hour (approx. $1,738/month) to Former Wife, found Former Husband grossed $16,279.33/month, and awarded durational alimony $3,500/month for eight years.
- Trial court calculated retroactive child support and alimony and concluded no arrearage was due, giving Former Husband credit for pretrial payments (~$6,000/month) used for household expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Motie (Former Wife) Argument | Motie (Former Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether durational vs. permanent alimony after a long-term marriage | Marriage >17 years creates presumption for permanent alimony; Wife needs ongoing support; trial court abused discretion by awarding durational alimony | Court found Wife could earn/impute income and durational alimony appropriate | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by not awarding permanent periodic alimony (presumption rebuttal insufficient) |
| Whether trial court properly calculated retroactive alimony/child support arrearage | Court failed to make findings on Wife’s need and Husband’s ability to pay during retroactive period; awarded child support retroactive to time parties lived together; improperly credited Husband for mortgage payments and double-counted those payments | Husband argued payments justified no arrearage and that some payments (e.g., insurance) offset obligations | Reversed in part: trial court erred on three grounds (no findings on need/ability, retroactivity while cohabiting, improper/double-counted credit); remanded for recalculation |
| Imputation of income to Former Wife | (Implicit) Imputation appropriate? Wife argued actual earnings history low | Husband contends Wife can earn substantially more | Court did not abuse discretion in imputing income to Wife based on marketable skills; upheld imputation |
| Credit for pretrial household payments toward arrearage | Wife argued payments were household support and cannot be fully credited against arrearage where husband was primary breadwinner | Husband argued payments reduced arrearage and covered expenses | Reversed: credit for undifferentiated payments used for mortgage/household expenses was improper and resulted in double-counting; credit must be recalculated |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (articulates purpose of permanent alimony and guidance on discretion)
- Cerra v. Cerra, 820 So.2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (presumption that permanent alimony appropriate after long-term marriage)
- Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So.3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (long-term homemaker marriages are classic permanent-alimony cases)
- Alcantara v. Alcantara, 15 So.3d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (permanent alimony appropriate where spouse remained at home rather than pursuing career)
- Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (abuse of discretion to deny permanent alimony where homemaker unlikely to support herself commensurate with marriage lifestyle)
- Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So.2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (retroactive alimony must be based on payor’s ability to pay and payee’s need during retro period)
- Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So.3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversal where trial court failed to make findings about need/ability for retroactive alimony)
- Ditton v. Circelli, 888 So.2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (error to award retroactive child support to period when parties resided together)
- Córtese v. Córtese, 72 So.3d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (improper to credit payor for routine household/mortgage payments when payor was primary breadwinner)
- Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (same principle regarding credits for household payments)
- Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same)