RONALD ARROWOOD, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Grace M.P. Alcantara v. Alcantara, 15 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
  …need for alimony. As the record currently stands, any speculative benefit that might be available to the wife if she were to return to Hawaii is not a proper consideration in determining her entitlement to permanent alimony.3 See Searcey v. Searcey, 923 So. 2d 528, 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (finding that trial court may not consider possible future social security payments to husband in determining alimony award). Second, the finding that the parties’ educational achievements have rendered them “self-sufficient…
• McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
  …nent alimony award of only $400 per month would leave the Wife substantially unable to meet her basic needs. In addition, on remand the trial court must make the findings required by section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2005). See Searcey v. Searcey, 923 So. 2d 528, 529-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Marital Home The Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the Husband’s interest in the marital home to the Wife as lump-sum alimony. The trial court made an equitable distribution of…
• Martinez v. Martinez, 228 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
  …Husband’s military retirement. Although the trial court noted that the Wife will receive $886 a. month if her, disability claim, is approved, the court could not rely on this income because it was based on future speculation. See Searcey v. Searcey, 923 So. 2d 528, 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Alcantara v. Alcantara, 15 So. 3d 844, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). If the court was intending to impute income to the Wife, it failed to set forth an amount of income that was supported by the evidence. The court’s finding that…