JOHN W. WHEELER, APPELLANT,
v.
FAYE WHEELER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the financial provisions of the dissolution judgment were erroneous due to a significant income disparity and the award exceeding the wife's stated needs.
[1] A trial court's alimony award may be reversed when it results in the recipient spouse having an annual income nearly three times greater than the payor spouse, especially…
[2] A trial court has discretion in determining alimony awards, but this discretion is not unfettered and can be a basis for reversal if abused.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of dissolution ordered the husband to pay $21,000 to the wife, resulting in the wife having significantly more annual income than the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
In a final judgment of dissolution, the husband was ordered to make payments to the wife totalling $21,000 which, when added to her other net income of over $8,000, resulted in her receiving at least $29,000 per annum, (less whatever the income tax, if any, would be on the small permanent alimony award). By contrast, the husband’s net income in 1987, as we deduce it from his tax return, was approximately $31,000. Subtracting $21,000 which he has to pay pursuant to the final judgment from his net income leaves him only $10,000 while his wife will have at least $29,000, which is some $3,000 more than her stated needs on her financial affidavit. We reverse.
We make no apologies for our equivocating adjectives accompanying the arithmetical sums set forth in the foregoing paragraph. As is so often the case in divorces, the husband and the wife come to widely divergent mathematical conclusions. For example, in the case at bar, the husband urges that his net income is only $28,600 per annum, but we note a pattern of substantial refunds due to overpayment of income tax withheld.
Even allowing for the discretion afforded to all trial judges under Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we find reversible error when the award results in the wife ending up with an annual income of nearly three times more than the husband, especially when that award exceeds her stated needs set forth in her financial affidavit.
We have sympathy for the trial judge in this case. The financial data is muddled and the parties shift gears from gross to net income with all the dexterity of a racing driver. Now that the income tax returns filed by both parties are available for the years 1988 and 1989, the trial judge will be better able to assess the respective incomes after a full evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for this purpose.
We find no fault with any of the other provisions of the final judgment.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kitchens v. Kitchens, 4 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ward of alimony to Joyce Kitchens (the former wife). Applying an abuse of discretion standard, we reverse because the trial court’s modification of the alimony award resulted in a significant disparity in the parties’ income. See Wheeler v. Wheeler, 559 So. 2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980)). By way of background, the parties were divorced in 1997. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated a marital settlement agreement which pr…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)