ANDRE AUGUSTUS EATON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL LYNN WIGGINS EATON, 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 a dissolution of marriage appeal, the former husband challenged the trial court's alimony award and life insurance requirement, arguing the combined financial obligations left him insufficient retained income. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the trial court failed to account for all mandatory obligations before determining retained income sufficiency.
The court reversed the alimony award and life insurance requirement and remanded for the trial court to recalculate appellant's actual obligations including all insurance costs, determine appropriate retained income, and modify the judgment if necessary. The trial court must also make required findings concerning the need for life insurance and appellant's ability to maintain it before reinstating that requirement.
[1] An award of alimony may constitute an abuse of discretion if the obligor spouse is left with insufficient retained income after accounting for all mandatory obligations i…
[2] A trial court must deduct the cost of children's medical insurance from an obligor's net income when calculating retained income for alimony and child support purposes.
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“It is clear that the trial court did not consider all of the mandatory obligations imposed on appellant by the judgment when it found that he retained sufficient funds to support himself.”
Establishes the fundamental error that the trial court failed to account for all financial obligations when determining retained income sufficiency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court found appellant earned gross monthly income of $4,166.67 and ordered monthly payments of $1,100 for alimony, $672.48 for child support…
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
Former husband raised several issues on appeal of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage from appellee, former wife. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant argues that the trial court’s award of alimony to appellee is an abuse of discretion because his income is exhausted by all of his obligations under the judg*290ment so that he is left with no money to support himself. See Ballesteros v. Ballesteros, 819 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discretion abused, where combined alimony and child support equaled 60% of former husband’s net income, leaving him just $695.67 on which to live).
The trial court found that appellant earned a gross monthly income of $4,166.67 and ordered him to make monthly payments of $1,100 for alimony, $672.48 for child support, and $161.33 for the children’s medical insurance. The Child Support Guidelines Worksheet attached to the final judgment calculated his retained monthly income to be $1,807.18, which was 74.88% of his net income. However, those calculations failed to deduct from his retained income the $161.33 per month he was ordered to pay for the children’s insurance.
The trial court also failed to deduct premiums it ordered appellant to pay for ap-pellee’s COBRA medical insurance. No evidence had been presented as to the cost of the COBRA premiums, and the trial court did not set a fixed amount for the payment. On appeal, appellant asserts that the insurance costs $320 per month. If both of the asserted insurance premiums were deducted from appellant’s net income, he would then be left with $1,326 or 53.49% of his net income per month on which to live.
It is clear that the trial court did not consider all of the mandatory obligations imposed on appellant by the judgment when it found that he retained sufficient funds to support himself. Therefore, without reaching the merits of his alimony argument, we reverse and remand for the trial court to ascertain appellant’s actual obligations under the judgment and to exercise its discretion in determining whether appellant will be left with an appropriate retained income after paying them. If it determines that he will not, the trial court shall modify the obligations in its judgment accordingly.
We also reverse the portion of the judgment ordering appellant to maintain life insurance to guarantee alimony and child support. The trial court failed to make required findings concerning the need for the insurance and appellant’s ability to maintain it. Byers v. Byers, 910 So.2d 336, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). On remand the trial court may make the requisite findings.
We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STEVENSON, MAY and LEVINE, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cissel v. Cissel, 82 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…and LEVINE, JJ., concur. . This includes the provision requiring the husband to procure life insurance to secure the alimony and child support awards as such a provision must be supported by findings of need and ability to pay. See Eaton v. Eaton, 16 So. 3d 289, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).…
Authorities Cited
- Stephany M. Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Ballesteros v. Ballesteros, 819 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)