MICHELLE BORK, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFF D. BORK, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on alimony duration and attorney's fees but reversed the alimony amount because the trial court improperly deducted temporary alimony from the husband's net income when calculating the permanent alimony award.
The trial court erred in calculating the former husband's net monthly income by deducting temporary alimony that should have been added back before determining the permanent alimony amount.
[1] When calculating permanent alimony, temporary alimony deducted from the obligor's income during the pendency of the case must be added back to determine the obligor's tru…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichelle and Jeff Bork were married for fourteen years. The trial court found the husband's net income was $7,052.88 based on his amended Financial Af…
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
In this appeal, the former wife, Michelle Bork, appeals from the trial court’s rulings on the duration and amount of alimony and on attorney’s fees in the final judgment dissolving her fourteen-year marriage with the former husband, Jeff Bork. We affirm on all issues except the amount of the alimony award. As argued by the former wife, the face of the record reflects a clear error in the financial information utilized by the trial court in setting the alimony amount. The trial court found that the former husband’s net income was $7,052.88 based on his June 23, 2015, amended Financial Affidavit. However, this net amount is the result of a deduction of the temporary alimony award to the former wife in the amount of $3,500. Since the temporary alimony award was in place only until the final hearing, the former husband’s net monthly income should have been adjusted and increased by the temporary award amount before calculating the former wife’s alimony amount. As a result, the trial court’s finding concerning the former husband’s net monthly income is not supported and requires reversal.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction and further consideration as to the appropriate alimony amount to be awarded to the former wife.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED AND REMANDED in part.
RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.