BRYANT WOELK, APPELLANT,
v.
VICKIE WOELK, 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 appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a final judgment dissolving a marriage. While affirming the duration of alimony, the court remanded for further findings on the wife's actual need and reassessment of child support due to unclear expense calculations. The court also remanded for equitable division of certain debts.
The court affirmed the durational alimony award but remanded for further findings on the wife's actual monthly needs. The court also remanded for equitable division of specific debts and a reassessment of child support. The issue of attorney's fees was deemed not ripe for appeal.
[1] A trial court's award of durational alimony may be affirmed if it is for the length of the marriage, but reversed if the amount awarded is unclear from the record regardi…
[2] A trial court must make further findings regarding a party's actual need when the amounts listed in a financial affidavit conflict with trial testimony.
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“While we affirm the trial court's award of durational alimony for the length of the marriage, we are unable to review the amount awarded because it is unclear from the record and the final judgment which expenses were included or excluded in the trial court's finding that Wife's needs were approximately $1500 per month.”
Establishes the court's partial affirmation and the reason for remand regarding alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed the final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging rulings on alimony, child support, and equitable distribution. Both parti…
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 Ability To Pay Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Bryant Woelk (Husband) appeals the final judgment dissolving his moderate-term marriage to Vickie Woelk (Wife). Husband takes issue with the trial court's rulings on alimony, child support and equitable distribution.1 Both parties agree that the final judgment should be remanded to allow the trial court to equitably divide the debts listed in paragraph 11C of the joint stipulation, Wife's student loan debt, the Nemours debt, and the 2014 IRS debt. While we affirm the trial court's award of durational alimony for the length of the marriage, we are unable to review the amount awarded because it is unclear from the record and the final judgment which expenses were included or excluded in the trial court's finding that Wife's needs were approximately $1500 per month. See Dorworth v. Dorworth, 176 So.3d 336, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing for further findings where trial court listed specific items of expense in final judgment when it determined wife's monthly needs to be "at least" $5758.30 in order to maintain her then-current standard of living, but it was not clear whether or why certain expenses were included or excluded in performing these calculations). This is especially true because the amounts listed in her financial affidavit conflict with some of her trial testimony. Accordingly, we remand for further findings of Wife's actual need. As a result, the trial court must also reassess the child support amount in the event there are any changes to the amount of alimony awarded. We affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrett v. Cormac Barrett, 313 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Cremilde Grilo Nobre Giles v. Giles (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ed that his earnings would continue to increase. And while the trial court found that the former wife had a need and the former husband had the ability to pay, the court failed to determine the amount of the former wife's need. See Woelk v. Woelk, 251 So. 3d 359, 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); see also Horowitz v. Horowitz, 273 So. 3d 263, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[E]ven when the court makes findings regarding each of the section 61.08(2) factors, its failure to make findings 'to allow for meaningful review of th…
-
Frazier v. Dodd (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Dorworth v. Dorworth, 176 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Holmes v. Tonna Kay Holmes, 100 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)