RICHARD SEARCEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH SEARCEY, 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.
In this family law appeal, the husband challenged the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony following a 32-year marriage. The appellate court affirmed most issues but reversed and remanded the alimony award, finding the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $492 monthly when the wife's actual monthly surplus exceeded $2,400.
The court reversed the alimony award and remanded for reconsideration, finding the trial court abused its discretion given the 32-year marriage duration, significant income disparity, and the husband's severe diabetes. The court also reversed the attorney's fees award to be readdressed after alimony is redetermined. All other issues were affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding alimony when the award is not supported by adequate findings of fact regarding statutory factors.
[2] A trial court must make findings of fact regarding the economic factors set forth in section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes, when determining an alimony award.
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“The primary criteria for a trial court to consider in determining an award of alimony are the needs of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay.”
Establishes the foundational legal standard for alimony determinations under Florida law.
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 were married for thirty-two years. The wife earned a gross annual income of $101,000 and held both bachelor's and master's degrees earned …
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 Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The Husband appeals the final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties were married for thirty-two years. The trial court found in the final judgment that the Wife earned a gross annual income of $101,000, and it imputed a gross annual income of $11,310 to the Husband.1 It was undisputed that the Husband is uninsurable in Florida due to his severe diabetes. The Husband has a high school education. The Wife earned both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree during the marriage.
The trial court awarded the Husband $492 a month in permanent periodic alimony, the exact amount of its calculation of the Wife’s monthly surplus. However, this court’s calculations reveal that the Wife’s monthly surplus exceeds $2400. At oral argument, the Wife’s appellate counsel conceded a $1300 error in the Wife’s financial affidavit.2 It is incumbent upon counsel and the trial court to ensure the fairness and accuracy of the parties’ respective financial affidavits.
The primary criteria for a trial court to consider in determining an award of alimony are the needs of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay. Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In addition, section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2003), sets forth relevant economic factors for trial courts to consider in determining a proper award of alimony and requires courts to make findings of fact with regard to each factor. Although the trial court in this case failed to make the required findings, the parties did not raise that failure as reversible error. Nevertheless, it is clear from the duration of the parties’ marriage, the disparity in the parties’ incomes, and the fact of the Husband’s severe diabetes, see § 61.08(2)(b), (c) and (d), that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the Husband only $492 a month in permanent alimony. Accordingly, we reverse the award of alimony and remand for further proceedings on that issue. Upon reconsideration of the award of alimony, the trial court should make the findings required by section 61.08(2). See Sussman v. Sussman, 915 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
In its reconsideration of the alimony award, the court may not consider any possible future social security payments to the Husband. It is the Husband’s present need and the Wife’s present ability to pay that are relevant. See Olds v. Olds, 555 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Any future changes in the parties’ financial circumstances may be addressed in a modification action.
The Husband also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in directing the Wife to pay only $3500 of his $5000 in attorney’s fees. This award will need to be readdressed after the award of alimony is redetermined.
Accordingly, we affirm all issues not addressed in this opinion and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . The Husband's amended financial affidavit reflected a gross annual income of $8821.
. We do not suggest that the award of alimony to the Husband should be the amount of the Wife’s monthly surplus.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
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…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Sterling M. Olds v. Olds, 555 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Sussman v. Sussman, 915 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)