SCOTT EDWARD GIEGOLD
v.
VIRGINIA IRENE GIEGOLD
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 family law appeal, the Former Husband challenges the trial court's award of permanent and retroactive alimony to the Former Wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The appellate court found that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to make specific findings regarding net incomes, basing the alimony award on gross rather than net incomes, and awarding retroactive alimony without adequate findings regarding need and ability to pay.
The appellate court held that the Former Husband was correct on each of his three arguments. The trial court erred by failing to make specific findings regarding net incomes, using gross income calculations instead of net income calculations for the permanent alimony award, and awarding retroactive alimony without adequate findings of need and ability to pay.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings regarding the parties' net incomes to support an award of permanent alimony.
[2] Permanent alimony awards must be based on the parties' net incomes, not their gross incomes.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the three principal issues on appeal regarding the trial court's alimony award methodology and findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott and Virginia Giegold were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court awarded permanent and retroactive alimony to the Form…
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 Net Income Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
Mark F. Carpanini, Judge.
September 20, 2024 PER CURIAM. In this appeal of a final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, Appellant Scott Giegold (“Former Husband”) challenges the trial court’s award of permanent and retroactive alimony to Appellee Virginia Giegold (“Former Wife”). Former Husband argues that the trial court erred by, among other things1: (1) failing to make specific findings regarding the parties’ net incomes in
2
support of the permanent alimony award; (2) basing the permanent alimony award on the parties’ gross incomes rather on the parties’ net incomes; and (3) awarding retroactive alimony to Former Wife without making specific findings regarding Former Wife’s need for alimony and Former Husband’s ability to pay alimony during the period for which retroactive alimony was awarded. Former Husband is correct on each of these arguments. See Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1211-13 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Gayer v. Nicita, 368 So. 3d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Goodman v. Goodman, 363 So. 3d 220, 224 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). We reverse the award of permanent and retroactive alimony and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinions in Reese, Gayer and Goodman.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur. Jean M. Henne, of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for Appellant. Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj and Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, of Southern Atlantic Law Group, PLLC, Winter Haven, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED additional arguments. On remand, Former Husband may address these arguments to the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Giegold v. Giegold, 363 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…out making specific findings regarding Former Wife’s need for alimony and Former Husband’s ability to pay alimony during the period for which retroactive alimony was awarded. Former Husband is correct on each of these arguments. See Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1211-13 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Gayer v. Nicita, 368 So. 3d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Goodman v. Goodman, 363 So. 3d 220, 224 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). We reverse the award of permanent and retroactive alimony and remand this case for further proce…1 / 3
-
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 373 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…nstead of arguing on appeal that this failure was error, Former Husband argues that he is unable to pay the alimony award based on an assumed net income. But it is the trial court’s prerogative to determine net income, not ours. See Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1211 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). Therefore, I would not attempt to calculate Former Husband’s ability to pay based on our own findings. Given the trial court’s unchallenged failure to make a finding on net income, I conclude that we are unable to review t…
-
Mirella Aguilera v. Agustin, 365 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…roneous. See Pukin v. Pukin, 365 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“A financial affidavit is not competent, substantial evidence of a party’s income if the party testifies that the financial affidavit is not accurate.” (quoting Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1210 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023))). Therefore, although we generally reject Former Wife’s appellate arguments, we reverse with respect to the valuation of the Tahoe’s valuation and remand for the trial court to adjust its final dissolution judgment in acc…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Giegold v. Giegold, 363 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)