Turcotte v. Turcotte
122 So. 3d 954
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Married 13 years; former tile-business owners with husband handling service calls and wife managing retail shop.
- Business declined as relationship deteriorated; wife now a sales manager, husband holds a general contractor’s license.
- Trial court awarded former wife sole parental responsibility for two minor children.
- Trial court awarded former wife nominal alimony of $10/month based on husband’s potential to earn more.
- Court affirmed on two asset/child-related issues but reversed the nominal alimony award for lack of required findings of fact and remanded for new findings under section 61.08.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parental responsibility award | Turcotte argues error in sole custody award to Turcotte. | Turcotte contends the award was appropriate. | Affirmed. |
| Equitable distribution of assets and liabilities | Turcotte contends distribution was unequal. | Turcotte argues distribution was proper. | Affirmed. |
| Nominal alimony award | Turcotte argues nominal alimony is improper without sufficient factual findings. | Turcotte argues nominal alimony aligns with future earning potential. | Reversed; remanded for proper findings under 61.08. |
| Need for findings of fact under §61.08 | Findings were unnecessary if alimony is nominal. | Findings are required to support alimony award. | Remanded for explicit factual findings under §61.08. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lin v. Lin, 37 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (alimony requires need and payor’s ability to pay; nominal alimony possible when future changes expected)
- Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So.3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (nominal alimony when payer lacks current ability but future change anticipated)
- Schmidt v. Schmidt, 997 So.2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (nominal permanent alimony to preserve court’s jurisdiction if circumstances change)
- Williams v. Williams, 923 So.2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (final judgments must contain specific findings of fact for alimony)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 60 So.3d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (failure to include findings of fact is reversible error)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding of need and factors essential for appellate review)
- Mobley v. Mobley, 18 So.3d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (gray-area marriages require factual findings to resolve alimony of duration)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (standard of living considered; lack of conclusion inhibits review)