RICHARD SOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVETTE NOEMI SOLA, APPELLEE; SYLVETTE NOEMI SOLA, APPELLANT, V. RICHARD SOLA, APPELLEE; RICHARD SOLA, APPELLANT, V. SYLVETTE NOEMI SOLA, 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 consolidated appeal from a marital dissolution, the Second District reversed the permanent periodic alimony award because the trial court improperly included a mortgage payment expense that the wife no longer had at the time of the final hearing, but affirmed the attorney's fees award and remanded for recalculation.
The trial court erred in including the mortgage payment in the alimony calculation. The payee spouse's need for alimony must be determined based on circumstances existing at the time of the final dissolution hearing. Since the wife no longer had the mortgage expense, it should not have been considered in determining her need for alimony, and the award must be reduced by $3,788.
[1] Permanent periodic alimony is intended to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as established during the marriage.
[2] A trial court should determine a payee spouse's need for alimony based upon circumstances existing at the time of the final dissolution hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as they were established during the marriage of the parties.”
Establishes the foundational purpose of alimony awards
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' marriage was dissolved and the wife was awarded the marital residence valued at $880,000. The husband had satisfied the mortgage on the r…
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 Marital Residence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1207] CONSOLIDATED
KELLY, Judge.
In these consolidated cases, the parties appeal from the final judgment dissolving their marriage and from the order awarding attorney’s fees and costs. Richard Sola (the husband) challenges the permanent periodic alimony award to Sylvette Noemi Sola (the wife). Both parties challenge the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs. Because the alimony award is based in part on an expense the wife no longer has, we reverse the alimony award. We affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs and remand for further proceedings.
As part of the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets, the wife was awarded the marital residence valued at $880,000. The husband contends that because he had satisfied the mortgage on the marital residence before the final hearing, the trial court erred in including the $8,788 monthly mortgage payment in the wife’s alimony award. We agree.
“The purpose of permanent periodic alimony is to provide for the needs and necessities of life for a former spouse as they were established during the marriage of the parties.” Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla.2000); see also Tarkow v. Tarkow, 805 So. 2d 854, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court should determine the payee spouse’s need based upon circumstances that exist at the time of the final dissolution hearing. Italiano v. Italiano, 873 So. 2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also LaSala v. LaSala, 806 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). At the time of the final hearing, the wife no longer had the expense of the mortgage payment. Accordingly, the trial court should not have considered it in determining the wife’s need for alimony. Cf. Loss v. Loss, 714 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that a reduction in alimony in the amount of a monthly mortgage payment is proper where the party responsible for the monthly payment satisfies the mortgage). On remand, the trial court is directed to reduce the alimony award by $3,788.1
Both parties challenge the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees; however, we cannot conclude that the award constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla.1997). Therefore, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs. On remand, however, the trial court should reconsider this award, as well as the award of child support, in light of the reduction in the wife’s alimony award. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND, J., and FOSTER, ROBERT A., Associate Judge, Concur. . The reduction should be applied to both the prospective and retroactive periods for which alimony was awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. Hendon O. Wright, III, 135 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…if it reaches a different result on this issue. See, e.g., Guobaitis v. Sherrer, 18 So. 3d 28, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (requiring trial court to reconsider alimony and child support in light of reversal of equitable distribution scheme); Sola v. Sola, 940 So. 2d 1206,1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (urging trial court to reconsider awards of attorney’s fees and child support in light of reduction of alimony award). The former wife also argues that the final judgment is inconsistent. Ambiguities in a final judgment can…
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Mallard v. Mallard, 771 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2000)
- Tarkow v. Tarkow, 805 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Johnson v. State, 873 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Italiano v. Italiano, 873 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Loss v. Loss, 714 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Woodall v. State, 806 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)