MORTON WOLFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
IRENE WOLFMAN, 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 alimony and child support appeal, the husband challenged a trial court award of $600 monthly ($200 alimony, $400 child support) based on his $1,000 net monthly income. The appellate court reversed and reduced the child support obligation, holding that awards must be based on the husband's actual ability to pay rather than speculative future earning capacity.
Awards of alimony and child support must be determined based on the needs of the wife and children and the husband's actual ability to pay. The trial court erred in awarding $600 monthly total support when the husband's net income of $1,000 monthly, even leaving him without adequate funds for his own living expenses, did not support such an award. Child support was reduced to $100 per child ($200 total), and the alimony award of $200 was affirmed, resulting in a total monthly obligation of $400.
[1] Awards of alimony and child support must be determined based on the needs of the recipient spouse and children and the ability of the payor spouse to respond.
[2] A trial court cannot order alimony and child support payments that exceed the payor spouse's demonstrated ability to pay.
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“Awards of alimony and child support must be determined essentially on the elements of needs of the wife and children and ability of the husband to respond.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for alimony and child support awards
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 earned $1,000 net monthly with claimed expenses of $358 weekly. The wife was disabled, receiving $370 monthly in disability income, and ha…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal by the husband of an award of alimony and child support. We reverse.
The trial court ordered alimony of $200.00 monthly and child support of $400.00 monthly for a total of $600.00. In addition, the wife received exclusive possession of the marital residence and was awarded title to the furnishings in the residence. The husband also had to provide medical insurance for the children.
The husband was earning $1,000.00 net monthly. He claimed expenses of $358.00 weekly. The wife was acknowledged to be disabled from employment and was receiving $370.00 monthly disability income. The wife had custody of two eight-year-old children and claimed total weekly expenses of $278.00. The record shows the husband’s income was slightly higher several years previously. In one intervening year his income dropped because he was off work three months due to a serious heart attack. But his earnings at the time of trial had increased and there was no evidence tending to show any fraud, deceit, or wilfulness by the husband with respect to his earnings.
The trial court, at the conclusion of the final hearing, noted that the amount awarded the wife and children was:
about the maximum I can take from him. That doesn’t leave him nearly what he has to live on but he’s going to have to increase his income to satisfy his problems and his needs. .
And the trial court told the husband:
Well, sir, you’re going to have to earn it, sir. You’re capable of earning more than you’re showing. You’ve earned more than you’re showing, you’re capable of earning more than you’re showing, and if she comes back and shows me you’re earning more, I’m going to give them more. I think right now you have to earn a little more just to maintain yourself, but I think you’re capable of doing that, sir. Awards of alimony and child support must be determined essentially on the elements of needs of the wife and children and ability of the husband to respond. 10A Fla.Jur. Dissolution of Marriage, etc. §§ 54 and 80. As can be seen from the comments of the trial court, the husband did not have the ability to pay the amount of alimony and child support that he was actually ordered to pay. And there were no other circumstances shown by the evidence to support an award beyond the husband’s ability to pay.
Accordingly, the child support payments are hereby modified to $100.00 for each child; the award of $200.00 for alimony is affirmed; and the total monthly support obligation of the husband is set at $400.00. The judgment is reversed with directions that a judgment be entered in accordance with the terms of this decision.
DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…by the court. The trial court may nevertheless impute an income to a spouse where the evidence indicates a failure to exert oneself to meet family obligations. Kuntz v. Kuntz, 370 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); DeHart v. DeHart; Wolfman v. Wolfman, 344 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The husband, while unemployed at the time of the final hearing, was capable of working, although there was no evidence that he was readily employable at his former income level. The wife testified that her husband’s maximum mon…
-
Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…t may have imputed income based upon a party’s prior extraordinary efforts rather than upon the best efforts which reasonably should be expected over an extended time period. See Sokol v. Sokol, 441 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wolfman v. Wolfman, 344 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977.) It is also possible that the trial court awarded child support based upon the value of the husband’s business, rather than upon his reasonable employment potential. We do not rule out the possibility that marital assets can be u…
-
Kuntz v. Tove G. Kuntz, 370 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…nal employment for sustenance; particularly where, as here, there is no showing of a spouse’s willful failure to exert himself to discharge his family obligations. See, e. g., DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Wolfman v. Wolfman, 344 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); and Weston v. Weston, 251 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). A trial court has broad discretion in awarding alimony; however, under the facts of this case, even though it may be desirable to fully compensate appellee, it cannot be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence