JORGE G. ZARATE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA C. ZARATE, 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.
The court held that the trial court miscalculated child support and that periodic alimony should cease upon the recipient spouse's remarriage unless otherwise agreed.
The former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising issues regarding child support calculation and the duration of alimon…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal brought by the former husband, Jorge G. Zarate, from a final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Maria C. Zarate. We find the former husband has raised two meritorious points.
First, the trial court miscalculated the former husband’s child support obligation by failing to deduct the amount of the periodic alimony award made to the former wife from the former husband’s monthly income, and then failing to add it to the monthly income of the former wife. See §§ 61.30(2)(a)(9); (3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2008); Melo v. Melo, 864 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
*936Second, we agree with the former husband that the trial court’s statement in the final judgment regarding the alimony-award being “lifetime alimony until she marries, dies or there are other circumstances” (emphasis added) allows at least a theoretical argument that a “circumstance” may arise at some future date in which the former husband may be required to pay alimony even if the former wife re-marries. The law of this State is clear that in the absence of agreement to the contrary, periodic alimony ceases upon the re-marriage of the recipient spouse. See In re Freeland's Estate, 182 So.2d 425, 426 (Fla.1965).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand this case for recalculation of the former husband’s child support obligation and clarification that the husband’s periodic alimony obligation ends upon remarriage of the former spouse. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment below.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randy v. Heysek, 48 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ursuant to a. court order from a previous marriage or the marriage before the court. [*881] (4) Net income for the obligor and net income for the obligee shall be computed by subtracting allowable deductions from gross income. See Zarate v. Zarate, 28 So. 3d 935, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court miscalculated the husband’s child support obligation by failing to deduct the amount of permanent periodic alimony payments that he made to the wife from his monthly income); Finney v. Finney, 99…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Byron B. Freeland v. Gratigny, 182 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1965)
- Melo v. Melo, 864 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)