Schang v. Schang
53 So. 3d 1168
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Schang (former wife) appeals a trial court order modifying alimony and child support for Steven (former husband).
- The original dissolution judgment ordered alimony of $3,300 per month and child support of $3,172 per month to the wife and children combined.
- The husband filed a petition for modification based on retirement at 66 and majority of three of five children; at the time of the evidentiary hearing, four children had reached adulthood.
- The trial court entered the modification order more than one year after the evidentiary hearing, reducing alimony to $200 and child support to $1,100 per month.
- Court found the husband's income from Social Security was not supported by the record and noted failures to discuss substantial, unencumbered assets and the wife’s need with specificity.
- The court concluded the memory and reasoning may have been affected by the delay and reversed/remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay between hearing and judgment warrants reversal | Schang argues delay tainted the judgment and memory may have faded. | Schang argues no error from delay if merits are sound. | Reversal and remand for new evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether the court properly applied 61.08 factors given reduced income/assets | Schang contends the court failed to consider payee needs and payor ability with supporting factors. | Schang contends the court did not adequately articulate financial analysis. | Remand to reweigh factors with adequate findings. |
| Whether the court adequately discussed husband's assets and wife's needs | Schang asserts the court did not discuss unencumbered assets or wife’s needs with specificity. | Schang asserts the court considered these factors sufficiently. | Remand for explicit asset discussion and needs assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falabella v. Wilkins, 656 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (judicial duty to rule promptly in family law matters)
- Donn v. Donn, 733 So.2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (excessive delay plus merit concerns warrants reversal)
- Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young, 714 So.2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (delay and merit issues can indicate need for remand)
- McKenzie v. McKenzie, 672 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (inconsistencies between trial evidence and final judgment undermine credibility)
- Donn v. Donn (second citation), 733 So.2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (emphasizes need for pertinent findings of ability to pay and need)