VIVIAN BRUNO, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT D. BRUNO, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's alimony award because the court failed to make statutorily required findings explaining its determination of the type and amount of durational alimony. The court remanded for the trial court to provide findings of fact regarding the substantial income disparity between the parties and other relevant factors under Florida Statute § 61.08.
The trial court erred by awarding durational alimony without making findings of fact regarding the parties' incomes, financial resources, and other factors required by § 61.08. The award is reversed and remanded for the trial court to make the required findings explaining the type and amount of alimony awarded.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact regarding the parties' need for alimony and their ability to pay, considering all financial resources and income sources…
[2] A trial court's award of durational alimony must be supported by findings of fact that explain the basis for the type and amount of alimony awarded.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 61.08 requires the trial court to consider the parties' need for alimony and their ability to pay, § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2010), taking into account the financial resources of each party and all sources of income available to either party.”
Establishes the statutory requirements for alimony awards that the trial court must follow
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 nine years. Robert Bruno (husband) was 79 years old and had monthly income of $4,690, while Vivian Bruno (wife) was 68 ye…
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 Alimony Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
Vivian Bruno (former wife) argues that the trial court erred by awarding her only durational alimony in the final judgment of *1274dissolution, without supporting, statutorily-required findings. She also contends the monthly amount of alimony is inadequate. We agree, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The parties had been married nine years when Robert Bruno, 79 years old in 2011, petitioned for dissolution. Each entered the marriage as a homeowner and each deeded undivided half-interests in their homes to the other. They lived in what had been the former husband’s house and sold what had been the former wife’s house. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage the marital home became the former husband’s sole property once-again, with the only off-setting distribution to the former wife being a small fraction of the husband’s pension. The trial court awarded the former wife, 68 years old in 2011, only “bridge the gap/durational alimony for a period of 36 months” in the amount of $700.00 per month. It is unclear how the trial court arrived at its decision as to the type or amount of alimony or where the former wife will now be able to live.
Section 61.08 requires the trial court to consider the parties’ need for alimony and their ability to pay, § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2010), taking into account the financial resources of each party and all sources of income available to either party. See § 61.08(2)(d),(i), Fla. Stat. (2010). In the final judgment, the trial court made no findings regarding the parties’ income. But the record established that the husband’s monthly income is $4,690 while the wife’s is $545.1 There are no findings explaining the court’s arrival at the figure of $700 per month for alimony, given the disparity between the parties’ incomes or explaining the three-year limit in a case where both parties’ working lives may well be nearing an end.
Durational alimony2 is intended “to provide a party with economic assistance for a set period of time.” § 61.08(7), Fla. Stat. (2010). Because the record does not make clear that the trial court considered the disparity in the parties’ incomes and the financial resources of both parties, we remand for findings of fact relating to the award of alimony. See Kemmet v. Kemmet, 885 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Because the trial court did not make the findings of fact mandated by section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2003), regarding the amount of alimony it awarded and we are unable to divine from the record how it arrived at the amount (which appears somewhat low), we reverse the alimony award and remand for the required findings.”).
BENTON, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stricklin v. Stricklin, 247 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Johnson v. Johnson (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…s reversed and remanded for further findings on the parties’ need and ability to pay. See Stricklin v. Stricklin, 247 So. 3d 96, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversing and remanding durational alimony award for further findings of fact); Bruno v. Bruno, 119 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (remanding durational alimony award for further findings of fact where it was not clear how the trial court arrived at the figure awarded). Retroactive Child Support A trial court’s denial of retroactive child support is revi…
Authorities Cited
- Kemmet v. Kemmet, 885 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)