Payton v. Payton
109 So. 3d 280
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Payton appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Julie Payton.
- The trial court had ordered $1,750 monthly support during dissolution; the final judgment preserved prior orders and its enforceability.
- As of December 1, 2011, the court found $2,530.09 in past unpaid support arrearages and ordered $200 monthly payments until paid.
- Payton argued he overpaid and disputed the arrearage amount; the record does not show how the $2,530.09 figure was calculated and rehearing was denied.
- Ms. Payton’s health-insurance expense was listed as $300 monthly in two places, creating inconsistency about the actual cost of coverage.
- The final judgment required Payton to obtain and maintain a $50,000 life-insurance policy to secure alimony, but there was no evidence on availability or cost, leading to remand for findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrearages calculation | Payton contends arrearage amount is unsupported | Payton disputes higher arrearage and asserts records show lower total | Remand for specific findings on arrearage basis |
| Health-insurance cost | Ms. Payton overstated expenses by double counting | Inconsistency exists; need precise findings | Remand to determine actual monthly health-insurance cost |
| Life-insurance requirement | No evidence on availability/cost or payor ability to pay | Court may require coverage to secure alimony | Remand for findings on availability and cost of Life policy |
| Permanent alimony amount | Permanent alimony should reflect long-term marriage and needs | Obligations create disparity but must avoid undue burden on payor | Reverse and remand for findings to avoid significant net-income disparity or adjust amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Tipton v. Crotty, 872 So.2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing arrearage calculation absent competent evidence)
- Merian v. Merhige, 671 So.2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (rehearing/remedy on alimony orders with miscalculated expenses)
- French v. French, 12 So.3d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (remand for correction of erroneous calculations on monthly spousal expenses)
- Dennison v. Dennison, 650 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing/remanding where former husband's expenses were substantially miscalculated)
- Galstyan v. Galstyan, 85 So.3d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (requires findings to support life-insurance requirement for alimony)
- Norman v. Norman, 939 So.2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (error in ordering life-insurance without findings on availability/cost)