ELAINE J. NICHOLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD LEE NICHOLSON, 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.
Elaine Nicholson appealed a circuit court's alimony award, which the court calculated while incorrectly excluding her husband's social security benefits from income. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because Florida law explicitly permits social security benefits to be considered as income when calculating alimony.
Social security benefits are income that must be considered when calculating alimony. Florida Statute § 61.046(8) broadly defines 'income' to include any form of payment from any source, including social security benefits. The circuit court erred by excluding social security benefits from its calculation.
[1] Social security benefits may be considered income for purposes of calculating alimony.
[2] Florida statutes define "income" broadly to include any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source, including federal government payments.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“"[i]ncome" means any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source, including, but not limited to; wages, salary, commissions and bonuses, compensation as an independent contractor, worker's compensation, disability benefits, annuity and retirement benefits, pensions, dividends, interest, royalties, trusts, and any other payments, made by any person, private entity, federal or state government, or any unit of local government.”
Establishes the broad statutory definition of income that includes social security benefits 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 intelligenceElaine J. Nicholson sought alimony from her husband, Donald Lee Nicholson, unconnected with a dissolution of their marriage. The circuit court awarded…
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 Definition Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
Elaine J. Nicholson appeals the circuit court’s order awarding her alimony from her husband, Donald Lee Nicholson, unconnected with a dissolution of their marriage. See § 61.09, Fla. Stat. (2014). We reverse only because the circuit court was under the misimpression that it could not consider the husband’s social security benefit as income. In calculating the support amount, the court explained that it “[did] not think it [was] appropriate for this court to award federal social security to the spouse.” But to the contrary; section *118561.046(8), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that
“[i]ncome” means any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source, including, but not limited to; wages, salary, commissions and bonuses, compensation as an independent contractor, worker’s compensation, disability benefits, annuity and retirement benefits, pensions, dividends, interest, royalties, trusts, and any other payments, made by any person, private entity, federal or state government, or any unit of local government.
And specifically, social security benefits may be considered income for purposes of calculating alimony. Baker v. Baker, 419 So.2d 736, 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Boone v. Boone, 3 So.3d 403, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (considering both parties’ social security benefits as income in calculating alimony). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider the amount of the alimony award in light of this opinion and hold another hearing if necessary. Cf. Winewica v. Winewica, 436 So.2d 271, 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (reversing for another hearing on the amount of alimony to be awarded where the trial court “labored under the misapprehension that the appellee’s federal pension could not be considered in awarding alimony”).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
WALLACE and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boone v. Luana Faye Boone, 3 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Frederick v. State, 419 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lou Ann Winewica v. Winewica, 436 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)