CRAIG DONOFF, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MITZI ROBIN DONOFF, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 family law appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage after retrial on financial issues. The court reviewed the trial court's reconsideration of alimony, child support, and equitable distribution following a prior remand that required consideration of lump sum alimony as an alternative to permanent periodic alimony.
The trial court properly considered the option of lump sum alimony payable in installments on remand and made financial awards supported by competent substantial evidence. The court appropriately considered the boyfriend's contributions to the wife's expenses when determining her need for alimony.
[1] A trial court may consider contributions made by a cohabitant to a party's expenses when determining alimony, even if the cohabitation is temporary.
[2] A trial court's determination of a party's need for alimony is supported by competent substantial evidence if the record contains such evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In no way did we mandate that the court should or should not award permanent periodic alimony, nor did we mandate any specific changes in the court's scheme of equitable distribution.”
Establishes the limited scope of the prior appellate mandate—the court was only required to consider lump sum alimony option, not to make any specific award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1980 and had two minor children. Former Husband filed for divorce in 1994; Former Wife counter-petitioned. The trial court ente…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Former Husband appeals and Former Wife cross-appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered after retrial on certain financial issues between the parties. We affirm on all issues raised.
The parties were married in 1980 and later had two children, both still minors. Former Husband filed for divorce in 1994, and Former Wife counter-petitioned. The trial court initially entered final judgment in 1995. At that time, it equitably distributed the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, and ordered Former Husband to pay Former Wife permanent periodic alimony and child support for the two children. Both parties appealed.
In Donoff v. Donoff, 691 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we reversed because the trial court apparently did not realize that it had the option of awarding to Former Wife lump sum alimony payable in monthly installments. We remanded the case for the trial court to consider the option of lump sum alimony payable in installments, and to determine whether such a change if made would have an effect on any other aspects of the financial award. In no way did we mandate that the court should or should not award permanent periodic alimony, nor did we mandate any specific changes in the court’s scheme of equitable distribution.
Given this background, the instant record shows that on retrial the trial court fully considered our prior mandate and all of the financial circumstances of the parties as they had changed since the original final judgment. The court even consid ered evidence that Former Wife’s current live-in boyfriend contributes toward some of her expenses, such as her dry cleaning, meals, and vacations, and that he allows her the use of his car. While we disagree with the trial court’s suggestion that these contributions should not have been considered merely because the cohabitation was temporary, see Pill v. Pill, 559 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), our review of the record shows that the court did consider these contributions but found that they did not lessen Former Wife’s need for alimony. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support that finding. In sum, based on the unique facts of this case, we hold that the record amply supports the result reached by the trial court on all issues raised by the parties on appeal and cross-appeal and, as such, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donoff v. Mitzi Robin Donoff, 940 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…pouses have respective net worths of $13.3 million and $1.1 million, attorney fees should be denied). Reversed and Remanded with Instructions. GUNTHER, J., and KRATHEN, DAVID H., Associate Judge, concur. . For prior entries, see Donoff v. Donoff, 777 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Donoff v. Donoff 691 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . § 61.08(2) Fla. Stat. (2005). . § 61.08(2) Fla. Stat. (2005). .§ 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) ("in determining a proper award of alimony ... the court shall consider…
Authorities Cited
- Singleton v. W. Volusia Hosp. Auth., 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Bentzoni v. Prudence Martin Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Donoff v. Mitzi Robin Donoff, 691 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)