JOHN W. KAMINSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA M. KAMINSKI, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed alimony award based on imputed income lacking specific factual findings and vacated vague health insurance provision, affirming remainder of dissolution judgment.
An alimony award based on imputed income must be supported by specific findings of fact, and health insurance provisions must be sufficiently definite to be enforceable.
[1] An award of alimony based on imputed income must be supported by specific findings of fact regarding the obligor's capacity to earn and intentional avoidance of earning.
[2] A provision requiring payment of health insurance must contain sufficiently definite terms regarding what constitutes adequate coverage and the obligor's ability to affor…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a marital dissolution case, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay alimony based on income the judge believed he was capable of earning but int…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case.
The trial judge ordered appellant to pay more money in alimony than the record reflects his earnings will allow. The judge apparently found that appellant was capable of earning more than he was earning and had intentionally avoided earning enough to provide for appellee. Therefore, the judge imputed some amount of income to the husband in order to provide for the wife’s alimony. Because the trial judge made no specific findings of fact to support any imputation, we reverse the award and remand for a rehearing on this issue. Additionally, the order that “upon husband obtaining full time employment, he shall provide wife with adequate health insurance, unless she has full time employment and is afforded the right to have group health insurance” is too vague, open-ended and incapable of reasonable interpretation as to intent. Without knowing what the judge means by “adequate” and without some determination as to how much appellant can reasonably afford to pay, this requirement is too nebulous to understand or enforce. Upon remand a proper award of alimony and provision for health insurance, if available, should be made after a proper hearing. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. Paul, 648 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…termined. Even if this award is viewed purely as one for support, this court has held in a number of cases that the trial judge must set a specific dollar amount for medical insurance premiums and uncovered medical expenses. See Kaminski v. Kaminski 637 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Rogers v. Rogers, 632 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Szemborski v. Szemborski 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). On remand, the court should first view the split of the den…1 / 2