Quinones v. Quinones
84 So. 3d 1101
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Quinones married in 1988; two children, a son (adult by divorce) and a teenage daughter.
- Wife was unemployed for over eighteen years; husband was a network news correspondent earning over $1 million annually.
- August 2009 final judgment dissolving the marriage; January 2010 fee/cost award entered.
- Trial court reduced wife’s alimony to $14,135 monthly after-tax, while husband had approx. $58,000 monthly net income.
- Court treated husband’s voluntary adult-son support payments as a factor reducing alimony; found wife’s living expenses constrained oddly.
- Appeals challenge alimony amount, fee award, and equitable distribution; court affirms distribution but reverses alimony and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony amount improper due to son’s college payments | Quinones argues alimony incorrectly reduced by son's expenses. | Quinones contends trial court properly weighed husband's ability to pay. | Alimony award reversed; cannot include adult son's expenses. |
| Failure to consider standard of living during the marriage | Quinones asserts court ignored luxurious lifestyle and needs. | Quinones asserts court properly limited needs to financial evidence. | Alimony must reflect standard of living; remand for reconsideration without adult-son payments. |
| Treatment of voluntary payments for adult child | Quinones asserts court impermissibly considered voluntary adult-child payments. | Quinones maintains court may consider such payments absent contractual obligation. | Reversal on alimony due to improper consideration of adult-child support. |
| Attorney's fees and costs award | Quinones contends fees should reflect wife’s need and ability to pay after remand. | Quinones argues fee order was justified by other factors. | Fees reversed for reconsideration consistent with remanded alimony ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. McLean, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (voluntary child support not considered absent contract)
- Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1984) (no legal obligation to fund adult children's education)
- Rey v. Rey, 598 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (no legal obligation to support non-dependent adult children)
- Kilbride v. Kilbride, 432 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. App. 1988) (educational expenses not automatically added absent contract)
- Swigers v. Swigers, 531 N.E.2d 858 (Ill. App. 1988) (educational expenses may be considered in certain contexts)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard of living must be considered in alimony decisions)