FERNANDO VEGA, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON VEGA, 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.
Fernando Vega appeals a divorce decree imposing alimony obligations representing 80% of his net income for two years and 64% thereafter. The court reverses, finding the awards excessive and remands for recalculation based on the husband's ability to pay using net income as the benchmark.
The alimony awards are reversed as excessive. Net income, not gross income, is the proper benchmark for determining ability to pay. The court must set an award that the payor has the ability to pay and is fair to both parties. On remand, the wife's current income from her new employment should be considered in establishing reasonable permanent periodic alimony.
[1] Alimony awards must be based on the payor spouse's net income, not gross income.
[2] An alimony award that constitutes 80% of a payor spouse's net income is excessive.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 is axiomatic that the court must set an award which the payor has the ability to pay, and is as fair as possible to both parties.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing alimony awards that the payor must be able to afford the obligation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband has net income of $6,281 per month. The trial court awarded the wife $4,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony plus an additional $1,…
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 Net Income cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Fernando Vega appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the amount of alimony he has been ordered to pay is excessive. We agree and reverse for a new hearing.
According to the amended final judgment, the husband’s net income is $6,281 per month. The court awarded the wife $4,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony. For a two-year period, the court awarded the wife an additional $1,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony. Thus, the award for the first two years is $5,000 per month in alimony out of the husband’s net income of $6,281. This is 80 percent of the husband’s net income. After the two years, the award is $4,000 per month out of the husband’s net income of $6,281, which is 64 percent of the husband’s net income.
We reverse the awards as excessive. See Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (70 percent of net income excessive); de Armas v. de Armas, 471 So. 2d 185, 185-86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (80 percent of net income excessive); Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (60 percent of net income excessive), see also Lambertini v. Lambertini, 817 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Gomez v. Gomez, 659 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (excessive imputation of income; award exceeds ability to pay); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 427 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (reversing under Parham and Blum,); Scott v. Scott, 408 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (excessive awards); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (award left husband $50 per week).
It is axiomatic that the court must set an award which the payor has the ability to pay, and is as fair as possible to both parties.
“[A] trial judge must ensure that neither spouse passes automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune, and, in viewing the totality of the circumstances, one spouse should not be ‘shortchanged.’ ” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980) (citation omitted); Gandul.
The wife argues that an alimony award should be based on gross income, not net income. She contends that when the alimony award is compared to the husband’s gross income, the award is reasonable. The wife is in error. In reality, the case law states that net income is the relevant benchmark. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d at 1202 (Fla.1980); Lambertini v. Lambertini, 817 So. 2d at 943; Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d at 468; de Armas v. de Armas, 471 So. 2d at 185; Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d at 108; Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d at 54.*
It is our understanding that' the wife has now completed her course of studies in nursing, and has begun work. On remand, the wife’s income should be taken into account in establishing the level of permanent periodic alimony. The husband does not dispute the wife’s right'to permanent alimony, but argues, correctly, that the amount which has been set exceeds his ability to pay.
For the stated reasons, we reverse the permanent and rehabilitative alimony awards, contained in the amended final judgment, and remand for a hearing to set reasonable amounts which the husband can afford to pay.
Reversed and remanded.
*
The Canakaris decision states that "[a] spouse’s ability to pay may be determined not only from net income, but also net worth, past earnings, and the value of the parties’ capital assets.” 382 So. 2d at 1202 (citation omitted). In the present case, given the limited amount of the parties’ other assets, the husband's ability to pay depends on his net income.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Crick v. Robbin Vickery Crick, 78 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…utomatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune, and, in viewing the totality of the circumstances, one spouse should not be “shortchanged.” ’ ” Perez v. Perez, 11 So. 3d 470, 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Vega v. Vega, 877 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). When determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony, this court considers whether the award “ ‘exceeds or nearly exhausts a party’s income’ ” and is therefore not supported by competent, substan…
-
Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 116 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…he ability to pay alimony should be based on the party’s net income. See Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that trial court erred by using figures that represented gross income rather than net income); Vega v. Vega, 877 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (noting that former spouse’s argument that alimony award should be based on gross income rather than net income was incorrect because “[i]n reality, the case law states that net income is the relevant benchmark”) (citing Cana…
-
Rentel v. Sun Rentel, 124 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ourt erred by not making findings regarding net income. We agree. Net income rather than gross income is relevant when calculating support awards, including alimony. Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 116 So. 3d 473, 474-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Vega v. Vega, 877 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Because it is not apparent that the trial court based its alimony calculations on net income, we reverse and remand to make the required findings and to modify the a…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of W. L. F., 408 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- de Armas v. de Armas, 471 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Gelin Stephen v. State, 659 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Lambertini v. Lambertini, 817 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 427 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)