Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
In a recent Florida family law appellate case, issues regarding alimony, child support and a parenting plan were appealed, leading to reversal of the trial court’s final judgment of divorce. Notably, the former husband successfully argued that the amount of alimony awarded to him was unsupported, that the child support calculations appeared to be arbitrary, and the agreed-upon parenting plan should have been adopted by the court. Today we review the case Garcia v. Espinosa, 3D20-265 (Fla 3d DCA January 6, 2021).
The parties were married for over 17 years by the time the former wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage. The former husband was almost 20 years older than the former wife, was unemployed at the time of divorce and was receiving social security disability payments totaling $2,445.00 per month. The former wife was employed as a trial attorney with the federal government earning in excess of $113,000.00 per year. The former husband transported the children to school in light of the former wife’s work schedule. The former wife testified the parties lived beyond their means. The former husband testified he contributed $1,600 per month to the mortgage. The parties entered a parenting plan which resolved equitable distribution and establishment of a parenting plan. The parties agreed one of their minor children would live with the former wife while the other minor child would live with the former husband.
Ultimately, according to the appellate opinion, “In the partial final judgment, the trial court ordered the former wife to pay $200 per month in alimony for seven years. The trial court determined the former wife's child support obligation was $737.60 per month until July 28, 2021, when it drops to $465.65; it further concluded the child support obligation was zero because the former husband receives $800 per month in dependent benefits for the parties' children. The trial court refused to adopt the parenting plan and allowed for further modification by either party based on the best interest of the children.” Based on this, the former husband appealed.
Discussing the alimony award first, the appellate court found error in the trial court’s lack of findings regarding the award. It held “Although the trial court correctly determined that the parties' seventeen-year marriage is a long-term marriage in Florida, it did not make an express finding that the former husband is entitled to a presumption in favor of permanent alimony. Nor did it explain how this presumption was rebutted. In awarding durational alimony, the trial court summarily concluded that the former husband ‘has a need based on his limited ability to work’ and that ‘[n]o other form of alimony is appropriate,’ however, it ‘[gave] no guidance as to why permanent periodic alimony is inappropriate in [this] long-term marriage and why durational alimony was awarded, [therefore,] reversal is proper.’ [internal citation omitted]. The final judgment also left unexplained whether the former husband has an ‘ongoing need for support on a permanent basis.’” The appellate court further found error with the court’s lack of findings regarding the lifestyle during the marriage, the income disparities between the parties. The court held “Next, the partial final judgment does not include the requisite factual findings to explain why alimony was limited to $200 per month. In this regard, the final judgment does not address or reconcile the inconsistent evidence regarding the former wife's income, expenses, and liabilities. Additionally, the former wife testified that she received $500 per month from her live-in boyfriend at the time of trial. It is proper for the trial court to consider such circumstance in determining the overall expenses of the former wife, the appropriate award of alimony, and her ability to pay.”
Considering child support next, the appellate court found error in the trial court’s lack of insight as to how child support was calculated. The court held “First, the trial court erred by calculating the child support obligation based on the parties' gross, rather than net, income [. . .] Second, the trial court determined the former wife's child support obligation is $737.60 per month until July 28, 2021, when it falls to $465.65. But there is no written explanation, or oral finding in the trial transcript, as to how the trial court reached these numbers. Likewise, there is no explanation as to why the obligation decreases after July 28, 2021, which is likely an error. There is also no child support guidelines worksheet filed by the trial court to conduct a meaningful appellate review of the award. [. . .] Lastly, we note the trial court erred by ordering that ‘[a]ny out of pocket or supplemental cost shall be shared by the parties equally.’ This ruling is contrary to the clear directive under section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes, which provides that such medical expenses ‘shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.’ It is unclear from the partial final judgment whether the trial court deducted the health insurance paid by the former wife, through her payroll deductions, from her child support obligation, and whether the trial court added the uncovered medical expenses to the basic obligation of both parties.”
Last, with regard to the parenting plan, the appellate court held it was error for the trial court to fail to adopt the parties’ agreed-upon plan when at trial, the court orally pronounced it was adopting the plan. The appellate court held “It is a ‘well-established principle that a trial court's oral pronouncement controls over its written order.’ Cancino v. Cancino, 273 So. 3d 122, 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing cases). The trial court abused its discretion in failing to review and approve the parenting plan as it had orally pronounced twice at the bench trial. On remand, the trial court, in keeping with the statutory mandate that ‘the best interest of the child[ren] shall be the primary consideration,’ section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, shall review and adopt the parenting plan to conform the final judgment with its oral pronouncements.”
Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to go over how Florida law may apply to your case.