Suit v. Suit
48 So. 3d 195
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Suit appeals final dissolution judgment; only alimony amount challenged; remand to determine true costs of Wife's future living arrangements and impact on Wife's invested assets.
- Married ~23 years; both in mid-50s; one legally adult child.
- Husband earned >$600,000/year in final years; Wife largely nonemployed but operated two small businesses.
- Historic standard of living used to determine Wife's need; trial court awarded $17,825/month permanent alimony after tax, based on $13,569/month need plus family child support.
- Husband received the marital home (~$850,000) with mortgage; Wife received liquid/assets (~$1.3 million total), including retirement and other investments; assets were structured to support living standards.
- Trial court included housing costs (mortgage and HOA) in alimony despite lack of current loan/membership verification; court refused to impute income or force depletion of retirement assets; on appeal, some asset-income treatment and housing cost issues were found needing remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputing income and asset income affecting alimony | Suit argues for imputation of Wife's income and consideration of asset-generated income | Suit argues for no imputation and no income from assets | Abuse found in failing to recognize income from nonretirement assets; no abuse on imputing income. |
| Proper use of asset income vs. corpus in alimony | Suit claims Wife's nonretirement assets generate income that should reduce alimony burden | Suit argues assets should not be invaded or recharacterized | Trial court abused by not recognizing asset-generated income; need remand for precise analysis. |
| Housing costs and effect on investments on remand | Suit contends true housing costs and their impact on investments were not properly found | Suit contends current award already includes housing costs; remand needed for precise housing findings | Remand required to validate true housing costs and their effect on assets. |
| Possibility of a savings component in alimony under Mallard | Suit raises concern that alimony may indirectly fund a mortgage as savings | Suit acknowledges Mallard but seeks careful reconsideration rather than prohibition | Mallard issue acknowledged but not decisively resolved; remand instructed to consider carefully. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. McLean, 652 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (limits on depleting retirement assets in alimony decisions)
- Holley v. Holley, 380 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (asset types and need for funds to rebuild after dissolution; distinction from case with real estate focus)
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2000) (concerns about alimony acting as savings or funding future mortgage; current necessary support vs. capital accumulation)