HENRY N. COPPOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
LENORA COPPOLA, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment on alimony and attorney's fees, finding the trial court erred in calculating the husband's income by assuming he would forgo vacation time and failed to account for certain expenses, and abused its discretion in awarding the wife attorney's fees when assets were equally distributed and her income exceeded the husband's.
The trial court erred in computing the husband's income by anticipating he would forgo vacation time without sufficient exigency demonstrated, erred or failed to consider the husband's undisputed monthly expenses for union dues, uniforms, and unreimbursed travel expenses totaling over $500, and abused its discretion in awarding the wife attorney's fees where the equitable distribution was essentially equal and the wife's income, including alimony, exceeded the husband's.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding attorney's fees when the equitable distribution of assets is essentially equal and the receiving spouse's income, includin…
[2] A trial court errs by considering anticipated future income from unused vacation time as current income for alimony calculations when the record shows a history of the sp…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It was also an abuse of discretion to order Appellant to pay Appel-lee's attorney's fees where the equitable distribution of assets was essentially equal, and Appellee's income, including alimony, exceeded the husband's.”
Establishes the standard for when attorney's fees awards constitute an abuse of discretion in dissolution cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Coppola, an airline pilot, and Lenora Coppola were involved in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court awarded alimony to Lenora a…
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 Alimony Award Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The final judgment of dissolution is reversed. With respect to alimony, the record reflects several items that the court either failed to consider as expenses or erred by considering as income in arriving at the amount of the award. It was also an abuse of discretion to order Appellant to pay Appel-lee’s attorney’s fees where the equitable distribution of assets was essentially equal, and Appellee’s income, including alimony, exceeded the husband’s. See Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ball v. Ball, 554 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Avery v. Avery, 548 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
In computing the husband’s income, the court anticipated that he would forgo his allotted vacation time and receive a cash adjustment for the unused vacation. Although the husband did “cash in” vacation time in a prior year in order to pay a tax liability, the record reflects a history of his otherwise using vacation time for its intended purpose. Although there certainly may be instances, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, in which one spouse should be expected, and can be required, to forgo earned vacation time in order to meet the needs of the other spouse, we do not find sufficient exigency demonstrated here for such a mandate. Nor can we assume, without more, that Appellant should not be treated the same as any other employed spouse with regard to vacation time merely because he is an airline pilot and has the additional time off that that occupation requires.
In calculating expenses, the court apparently failed to consider the husband’s undisputed expenses for union dues, uniforms, and unreimbursed travel expenses, totaling over $500 per month. Further, the record is not clear whether the court took into account the interest expense with which it burdened the husband when it allocated the parties’' extensive debt to him, recognizing that there would be no liquid assets with which to satisfy the debt until the sale of the house.
With respect to the other issues raised, we find no error or abuse of discretion. On remand, the trial court should also consider whether the wife now qualifies for social security disability benefits.
Therefore, the final judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Moore, 157 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…e party, i.e., the party’s net monthly income. See Cissel v. Cissel, 82 So. 3d 891, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). In calculating a party’s monthly income, business expenses must be deducted from the party’s gross income. Id.; see also Coppola v. Coppola, 630 So. 2d 673, 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“In calculating expenses, the court apparently failed to consider the husband’s undisputed expenses for union dues, uniforms, and unreimbursed travel expenses, totaling over $500 per month.”). We recognize the difficult ta…
-
Patsy v. Rosanne M. Patsy, 670 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…agreed to in the settlement agreement, is less financially able to pay attorney’s fees than is the wife. Moreover she has a $60,000 net worth by virtue of the equity in the marital home which she received in the settlement. In Coppola v. Coppola, 630 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), we held that it was an abuse of discretion to order the former husband to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees, where the equitable distribution was equal and her income, including alimony, exceeded the husband’s. The wife ar…
-
Lenora Coppola v. Coppola, 679 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…y, namely the interest expense on his boat and automobile and the cost of certain court-ordered insurance payments, that were beyond those authorized by the limited scope of the remand directed by our prior opinion in this cause, Coppola v. Coppola, 630 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Although constituting “interest,” it is clear from our review that the interest paid on loans secured by the assets of the former husband were not the subject of this court’s earlier concern prompting the remand, which the parti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Avery v. Avery, 548 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Ball v. Zita L. Ball, 554 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)