JOY TRACHTMAN TORDINI N/K/A JOY TRACHTMAN
v.
RAPHAEL JOSEPH TORDINI
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.
A permanent alimony award that falls far short of meeting the recipient's basic monthly expenses while leaving the payor with a substantial surplus must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
[1] A permanent alimony award must be set aside and remanded for reconsideration when the unchallenged trial court findings establish that the award falls substantially short…
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“a trial judge must ensure that neither spouse passes automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune, and, in viewing the totality of the circumstances, one spouse should not be 'shortchanged.'”
Statement of the legal standard for alimony awards from Canakaris v. Canakaris
In a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded permanent alimony to the former wife, but the unchallenged findings showed the award did no…
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 Remand For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
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
JOY TRACHTMAN TORDINI N/K/A
JOY TRACHTMAN,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-302
RAPHAEL JOSEPH TORDINI,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 4, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Karen A. Foxman, Judge.
Horace Smith, Jr., P.A. and Sheila M. Ennis, of Smith Bigman Brock, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Brian P. North, of Kenny Leigh & Associates, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Joy Trachtman Tordini n/k/a Joy Trachtman (“Former Wife”), appeals a final judgment of dissolution, challenging, inter alia, the trial court’s permanent alimony award. We reverse the alimony award, and as a result, the trial court must also reconsider the attorney’s fees award on remand. We otherwise affirm.
2
A trial court may award permanent alimony “to provide for the needs and necessities of life as they were established during the marriage of the parties for a party who lacks the financial ability to meet his or her needs and necessities of life following a dissolution of marriage.” § 61.08(8), Fla. Stat. (2019). While a trial court has broad discretion when fashioning an alimony award, our supreme court has held that “a trial judge must ensure that neither spouse passes automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune, and, in viewing the totality of the circumstances, one spouse should not be ‘shortchanged.’” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla. 1980) (citation omitted); see also Martinez v. Martinez, 228 So. 3d 164, 166–67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Rey v. Rey, 598 So. 2d 141, 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Poe v. Poe, 522 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Based upon the trial court’s unchallenged findings, the alimony award falls far short of meeting Former Wife’s basic monthly expenses. At the same time, the award leaves Former Husband with a substantial surplus each month—all without explanation in our record. On these facts, Canakaris and its progeny require us to reverse the alimony award and to remand for reconsideration. In doing so, we recognize that the trial court must necessarily also reconsider the award of attorney’s fees. Cf. Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). We therefore do not reach the specific arguments raised on appeal challenging the trial court’s award of fees and the corresponding payment plan. REVERSED and REMANDED.
EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., and TAKAC, M.G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Homosassa Travelers Assocs., Ltd. v. Mid-State Fed. Sav. Bank, 598 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 228 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)