JOSHUA ADAM VILARDI, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER FAWN VILARDI, 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.
In this marital dissolution appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's alimony and child support determinations but reversed the unequal distribution of marital debt, holding that disparity in earning ability alone cannot justify unequal asset distribution without statutory findings of fact.
The court affirmed the trial court's decisions on the first four issues regarding alimony and child support calculations. However, the court reversed and remanded the unequal distribution of marital debt, finding that disparity in earning ability is an insufficient basis for unequal distribution and that the trial court must make findings of fact supporting any unequal distribution in accordance with Florida Statute § 61.075.
[1] A trial court must begin with the premise that the distribution of marital assets and liabilities should be equal, unless there is justification for an unequal distributi…
[2] A spouse's inability to pay marital debt is an insufficient basis, without more, for an unequal distribution of marital liabilities.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a gap in spouses' earning abilities is an insufficient basis for unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities”
Establishes the core principle that disparate earning ability alone cannot justify unequal distribution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a Final Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage between Joshua Adam Vilardi (Former Husband) and Jennifer Fawn Vilardi (Former Wi…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Joshua Adam Vilardi (“Former Husband”) appeals the Final Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage and the order denying his motion for rehearing and clarification of the final judgment regarding his marriage to Jennifer Fawn Vilardi (“Former Wife”). Former Husband raises five issues, contending that the trial court erred in: 1) calculating the alimony award; 2) awarding permanent alimony to Former Wife; 3) determining Former Husband’s net income for the purpose of awarding alimony; 4) calculating Former Wife’s child support obligation; and 5) ordering an unequal distribution of marital debt without making statutorily-required factual findings in support of the determination. We affirm as to the first four issues and reverse and remand as to the fifth.
In the final judgment, the trial court assigned a marital debt of $281,782 to Former Husband solely on the basis that Former Wife did not have the ability to pay the debt. However, a gap in spouses’ earning abilities is an insufficient basis for unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities. David v. David, 58 So.3d 336, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[Disparate earning abilities cannot, without more, justify unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities.”); Dease v. Dease, 688 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (‘While disparate earning abilities may justify alimony (and the court awarded alimony), it does not, at least without more explanation, justify an unequal distribution of marital assets.”); Hallman v. Hallman, 575 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“[T]he husband’s superior earning ability ... is not a factor for purposes of equitable distribution of assets.”).
In determining equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, a trial court “must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.” § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). To justify unequal distribution, the trial court must include in the final judgment findings of fact supporting its determination. § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat, (2016). In this case, the trial court failed to include in the final judgment factual findings advising the parties of its rationale for the unequal allocation of marital liabilities or its consideration of the relevant factors other than Former Wife’s inability to pay the marital debt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings or to reconsider the allocation of marital debt, which may also *397require reconsideration of the award of alimony and attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. ' - ■
SAWAYA, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 373 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
-
Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- David v. David, 58 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Hallman v. Hallman, 575 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dease v. Dease, 688 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)