WOELK

v.

WOELK

Fla. 5th DCA | 2018-08-27

No. 5D17-1717

Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2018)

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.

Holding

The trial court's award of durational alimony is affirmed, but the amount awarded and child support must be remanded for further findings specifying which expenses were included or excluded in calculating the Wife's actual monthly needs.

Headnotes

[1] Where a trial court awards alimony based on a determination of the obligee's monthly needs but the final judgment and record do not clearly indicate which specific expens…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“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”
Court's reasoning for remanding the alimony amount determination

Facts & Procedural History

Bryant and Vickie Woelk were parties to a moderate-term marriage dissolution. The trial court awarded durational alimony and child support based on a …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Financial Affidavit Durational Alimony Attorney'S Fees Entitlement Child Support

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BRYANT WOELK, Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-1717 VICKIE WOELK, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 31, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Diana Michelle Tennis, Judge.

Lauren M. Ilvento, of Ilvento Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Marcia K. Lippincott, of Marcia K. Lippincott, P.A., Lake Mary, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions. BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

actual award or determination of amount of fees (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 100 So. 3d 745, 745–46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012))).

Footnotes

1 Although Husband disputes the trial court's findings that Wife has the need for Husband to pay a portion of her attorney's fees and that he has the ability to do so, this issue is not ripe for appeal. See Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (declining to address entitlement to attorney's fees where there was no 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

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)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw