177 So. 3d 1000
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Marriage: parties married in 1990; marriage lasted 22 years (long-term marriage). Final judgment entered in 2014.
- Financials: Husband earned ~$86,000/yr with benefits; Wife worked part‑time (~25 hrs/week) making ~$1,500/month and had no benefits. Trial court imputed $24,000/yr to Wife.
- Property: Retirement accounts and marital residence comprised most of ~ $400,000 marital equity; court ordered sale of the home (sale occurred during appeal).
- Alimony: Trial court found Wife had need and Husband ability to pay, and awarded durational alimony of $1,000/month for four years (initially labeled "temporary" then corrected to "durational").
- Procedural posture: Wife appealed primarily challenging the award of durational (vs. permanent) alimony; appellate court reversed the alimony award for insufficient statutory findings and remanded for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether durational alimony was proper in a 22‑year marriage | Durational alimony was inappropriate; permanent alimony should have been awarded given marriage length and Wife's lack of long‑term employment/benefits | Durational alimony appropriate; trial court exercised discretion and found need/ability | Reversed: trial court failed to make required findings under §61.08(2) and (7) (did not expressly find permanent alimony was inappropriate or that there was no ongoing permanent need) |
| Whether court made sufficient findings to permit appellate review of alimony choice | Argues findings were insufficient to show why durational vs permanent chosen | Argues statutory factors considered (implicit) and durational award justified | Reversed: findings were cursory and impeded review; remand for explicit application of statutory factors and possibly additional evidence |
| Whether imputation of Wife's income and anticipated increases justified | Argues imputation reasonable; future increases speculative so permanent alimony needed | Argues imputed full‑time income and potential future increases support limited durational award | Appellate note: court imputed $24,000 but record lacked evidence of foreseeable income increases; court warned against speculative future projections |
| Challenge to equitable distribution adjustments (credit card payments) | Contended trial court erred in adjustments | Trial court's distribution and adjustments were correct | Affirmed: appellate court found no reversible error on equitable distribution adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Wright, 135 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA) (reversal where absence of findings impeded review)
- Purin v. Purin, 158 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA) (caution against relying on speculative future events in alimony determinations)
- Valente v. Barion, 146 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversed where trial court misapplied law in choosing alimony type)
- Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA) (reversed durational alimony where findings insufficient)
- Fichtel v. Fichtel, 141 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA) (affirmed durational alimony where court expressly found durational appropriate and considered statutory factors)