Zinovoy v. Zinovoy
50 So. 3d 763
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Deborah Zinovoy challenges the final judgment in a dissolution of marriage, contesting permanent alimony and unreimbursed medical expense allocations.
- Final judgment allocated 23.95% of child support to Deborah and 76.05% to Michael, and required Michael to maintain insurance for the children and pay 100% of premiums.
- The judgment also required the parties to share equally 50% of unreimbursed medical, dental, prescription, hospitalization, optometric, and orthodontia expenses not covered by insurance, plus deductibles.
- Deborah argues the 50/50 split of unreimbursed medical expenses conflicts with the unequal child support allocation.
- The trial court awarded Deborah $6,370 per month in permanent alimony, which she contends is inadequate given Michael's income and the marital standard of living.
- The appellate court reverses and remands for reconsideration of both the unreimbursed medical expense allocation and the alimony amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 50/50 unreimbursed medical expenses align with child support share | Zinovoy contends 50/50 split conflicts with unequal child support. | Zinovoy's position is not explicitly contested in defense; the husband argues alimony issues primarily, but the court must evaluate consistency. | Allocation must mirror child support percentage; remand for amended judgment. |
| Whether alimony amount is proper given income and standard of living | Wife argues needs and lifestyle require substantially more than $6,370/month. | Husband argues court properly weighed evidence and need, or that evidence shows lower need. | Alimony amount is not supported by the record; remand for reconsideration within tested range. |
| Whether trial court properly weighed wife’s asserted expenses and lifestyle evidence | Wife's lifestyle analysis should be credited and not discounted as overstated. | Husband argues several items were inflated and should be reduced. | Trial court’s findings inconsistent with undisputed evidence; remand to correct factual determinations. |
| Whether the final judgment contains sufficient explanation for alimony determinations | Findings do not explain how conclusions were reached; lack of rationale undermines review. | Trial court’s reasoning is adequate to support the award. | Remand to provide explanation and justify alimony calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (alimony should reflect standard of living and avoid undercompensation)
- Laz v. Laz, 727 So.2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (ensure alimony aligns with marital lifestyle; avoid disparity)
- Wright v. Wright, 577 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (insufficient alimony relative to income and lifestyle warrants reversal)
- Sinclair v. Sinclair, 594 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (alimony needs and disparity between earning capacities evaluated)
- Schwab v. Schwab, 864 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (inflated expenses require competent evidence to support findings)
- Atkins v. Atkins, 611 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (trial court must rely on evidence showing actual living standard)
- Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So.3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (explains review of alimony awards considering evidence)
- Kelley v. Kelley, 967 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (trial court must explain certain alimony determinations for meaningful review)
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So.3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (collateral child support expenses must align with child support percentage)