ALBERT JOSEPH WINNIER, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL ANN WINNIER, 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 erred in failing to impute income to the former wife based on her liquid assets, while imputing income to the former husband.
The trial court imputed income to the former husband based on his retirement accounts but did not impute income to the former wife based on her liquid…
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 Liquid Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Albert Joseph Winnier appeals the supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. That judgment granted in part and denied in part his supplemental petition for modification of alimony and installment payments to his former wife, Carol Ann Winnier. The trial court erred in failing to impute income to the former wife for earnings that could reasonably be projected based on her liquid assets. Without explanation, the trial court imputed such income to the former husband. Consequently, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the alimony amount.
The trial court imputed to the former husband income of $1400 per month based on his CPA’s testimony that this would be a reasonable return on investment of the former husband’s retirement accounts. The trial court did not impute to the former wife income of $528 per month that the financial expert testified she could earn on her invested liquid assets. This was error. See Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding court must impute income reasonably projected for earnings on liquid assets awarded in property division.).
The former wife concedes that the trial court erred. However, she argues that the error is harmless because the former husband has the financial resources to pay the modified alimony. We disagree. Our record does not allow us to conclude that the result would be the same even without the error. Thus, we reverse and remand for recalculation of alimony in light of this item of imputed income. We affirm on all other issues without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stoltzfus v. Stoltzfus, 172 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…g alimony “where the court can reasonably conclude [*527] that the principal of the [retirement account] will not be invaded for the purpose of support.” Niederman v. Niederman, 60 So. 3d 544, 547-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); see also Winnier v. Winnier, 163 So. 3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“The trial court imputed to the former husband income of $1400 per month based on his CPA’s testimony that this would be a reasonable return on investment of the former husband’s retirement accounts.”). This is true regardl…
Authorities Cited
- Buoniconti v. Ivy Buoniconti, 36 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)