KAREN L. UTTERBACK A/K/A KAREN FURREY, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS UTTERBACK, 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 affirmed the trial court's determination that the former husband's tax obligation on alimony was limited to taxes on the $3,000 monthly alimony payment itself, not on the former wife's other income, and rejected the wife's unpreserved "gross up" tax argument.
A former husband's agreement to pay taxes on alimony is limited to taxes calculated on the alimony amount alone, without regard to the former wife's other income sources.
[1] A former spouse's obligation to pay taxes on alimony is calculated on the alimony amount alone, without regard to the recipient spouse's other income sources.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“former husband's agreement to pay taxes derived from former wife's receipt of alimony did not require husband to pay taxes on rate resulting from wife's employment and investment income, rather, husband could calculate tax due on alimony as if wife had no other income”
Citing Rubio v. Rubio, 576 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), establishing the standard for calculating tax obligations on alimony.
A former wife appealed a post-judgment order denying her second amended motion for contempt and amended motion for sanctions regarding tax liability o…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a post-judgment order denying the former wife’s second amended motion for contempt and amended motion for sanctions. We affirm.
The record reflects that the trial court correctly determined that the former husband is responsible only for the tax liability on the $3000 a month alimony, without consideration of any additional income received by the former wife. See Rubio v. Rubio, 576 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)(finding that former husband’s agreement to pay taxes derived from former wife’s receipt of alimony did not require husband to pay taxes on rate resulting from wife’s employment and investment income, rather, husband could calculate tax due on alimony as if wife had no other income); Rubio v. Rubio, 347 So. 2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)(same). Furthermore, we find that the wife’s issue of “gross up” taxes was not adequately presented to the trial court, and thus not preserved for appeal. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978) (finding that reviewing courts will not consider points raised for first time on'appeal); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that appellate court cannot consider issue on appeal that was not argued below or raised by motion for rehearing).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendes v. Mendes, 947 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…risdiction under Reno, the former husband did not invoke that remedy. As such, rehearing is denied. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Walls v. Sebastian, 914 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Utterback v. Utterback, 861 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Former husband is not limited in seeking modification in a new proceeding if justified by the current facts and circumstances of the parties. Rehearing Denied. WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Moss v. Moss, 901 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ument below. Thus, this issue is not preserved for our review. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978) (“As a general matter, a reviewing court will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal.”); see also Utterback v. Utterback, 861 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Wife. Further, we affirm the denial of the Husband’s request for attorney’s fees under section 57…
Authorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Perry v. State, 347 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Bingham v. State of Fla. & Michael W. Moore, 793 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Mauricio Rubio v. Lucile Rubio, 576 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)