HAROLD STOLTZFUS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CATHERINE S. STOLTZFUS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Florida dissolution of marriage appeal, the court addressed whether the trial court properly calculated permanent periodic alimony by failing to consider income from the former wife's 401K retirement accounts and interest-earning equalization payments. The court held that retirement account distributions should be considered as income for alimony purposes regardless of the recipient's age, and that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding such income.
The trial court abused its discretion by not considering interest income from the 401Ks and equalization payments in determining the former wife's income for alimony purposes. Retirement account distributions must be considered as income where the principal will not be invaded, regardless of whether the party has reached the age for penalty-free withdrawal. Additionally, the amended final judgment contained an unsupported mathematical error in calculating the former wife's need.
[1] Retirement accounts distributed in a dissolution of marriage proceeding should be considered income for alimony purposes if the court can reasonably conclude that the pri…
[2] Interest earned on equalization payments made pursuant to a dissolution of marriage judgment constitutes income for the purpose of calculating alimony.
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“Retirement accounts distributed to the parties should be considered income for the purpose of determining alimony 'where the court can reasonably conclude [that] the principal of the [retirement account] will not be invaded for the purpose of support.'”
Establishes the standard for when retirement accounts should be counted as income for alimony calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold and Catherine Stoltzfus divorced. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to Catherine but calculated her need without considering t…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
Harold Stoltzfus, the Former Husband, challenges the amended final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Catherine-Stoltzfus, the Former Wife. Among other things, the Former Husband challenges the court’s calculation of permanent periodic alimony and the figures used therein. The Former Wife cross-appeals, also arguing that the court erred in calculating alimony.
The Former Husband contends that the trial court failed to consider income available to the Former Wife in determining the Former Wife’s need for alimony. He identifies two 401K accounts that were distributed to the Former Wife, along with interest-generating monthly equalization payments required to be made by the Former Husband, as sources of interest income available to the Former Wife. The court specifically found that the 40lKs were income-generating assets but stated that the Former Wife would not be able to draw on the income until she' reaches the age of sixty-five.
Retirement accounts distributed to the parties should be considered income for the purpose of determining alimony “where the court can reasonably conclude *527that 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 regardless of whether the party has attained the age at which funds may be withdrawn without penalty. Niederman, 60 So.3d at 548. Section 61.046(8), Florida Statutes (2013), defines “income” to include “retirement benefits, pensions, dividends, [and] interest.” The interest earned on the equalization payments falls within the statutory definition of income and should also be considered in calculating the Former Wife’s income. See Adelberg v. Adelberg, 142 So.3d 895, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The court abused its discretion in not considering interest income from the 401Ks and equalization payments in determining the income of the Former Wife.
Additionally, both parties are correct that the amended final judgment contains a mathematical error in the calculation of the Former Wife’s need. The error amounts to $10,020 in annual expenses for which there is no support in the record.
As a result of these errors, we reverse and remand the amended final judgment for a redetermination and recalculation of the amount of the Former Wife’s need and the resulting alimony award. See Lin v. Lin, 37 So.3d 941, 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We affirm the amended final judgment in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
CRENSHAW and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LIN v. LIN, 37 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Niederman v. Niederman, 60 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Adelberg v. Adelberg, 142 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Buoniconti v. Ivy Buoniconti, 36 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Winnier v. Winnier, 163 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)