Walters v. Walters
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13207
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Former Husband sought downward modification of alimony retroactively to the petition filing date and challenged related support orders.
- The trial court imputed Former Husband's income at about $525,000 annually (base $225,000 plus bonuses) and imputed Former Wife's income at $31,000.
- Alimony was set as $5,625 per month plus $60,000 annually from bonuses; temporary events reduced or suspended payments after Former Husband's job loss in 2010.
- Former Husband's income declined after job loss; he paid reduced alimony but continued child support and 20% of bonus despite financial changes.
- The trial court found Former Husband had funds to pay $60,000 due December 1, 2010, and held him in contempt for not paying the full amount.
- On appeal, the court affirmed retroactive modification and amount determinations but reversed on several issues requiring remand: consideration of Former Wife’s current needs, health insurance credits, divestment findings, and clarity of the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive modification proper? | Walters contends trial court abused discretion by denying retroactive modification. | Walters argues delay in notice justified retroactive relief. | No abuse; retroactivity within court's discretion. |
| Amount of alimony based on net income? | Walters asserts the award overrelies on gross income and ignores other assets. | Walters contends assets and severance justify high alimony. | Court did not abuse; consider assets; amount supported. |
| Should Former Wife's current needs be reassessed? | Lopez requires reassessment when payor's income changes; needs may have shifted. | Current needs were established at dissolution; not to be reassessed. | Abused discretion; remand to consider both change in circumstances and current needs. |
| Clarity of temporary modification suspension terms? | Order lacked definite limits on suspension, risking contempt. | Language showed temporary suspension of the $60,000 payment. | Remand for clarification of suspension terms. |
| Credit for health insurance payments in child support? | Credit $475 per month for health insurance should reduce his child support obligation. | Statutory credit not properly applied; need recalculation. | Remand for re-calculation; failure to deduct violates §61.30(8). |
| Did Former Husband divest funds to avoid payments? | Purchasing vintage vehicles may have divested funds to evade obligations. | Funds invested to start a business; not divestment. | Division of funds was improper finding; remand for correct factual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSantis v. Smith, 634 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (retroactivity depends on need and ability to pay; not automatic)
- Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So.3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (need and ability to pay guide retroactive alimony)
- Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So.2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversal when income sources were undetermined)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 700 So.2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (look to all assets to determine ability to pay alimony)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (primary factors: needs and ability to provide funds)
- Bedell v. Bedell, 583 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1991) (recipient's needs control modification; prevents unwarranted enrichment)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 970 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (needs of recipient must be considered in modification)
- Willey v. Willey, 703 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (health insurance credits must be deducted from child support)
- Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (orders must be clear and definite to guide compliance)
- Haymon v. Haymon, 640 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (contempt requires clear order and ability to comply)
- Decker v. Decker, 660 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (excessive net-income percentage may be unfair; consider payor's remaining income)