In the case of Reese v. Reese, the former husband filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on February 10, 2020. The former wife responded with an answer and a counter-petition. The former wife argued that the trial court erred by determining that the former husband’s gross monthly income was income listed in his financial affidavit ($12,946 per month) even after the former husband testified that he received a $5,000 per year raise after he completed his financial affidavit.
The appeals court agreed with the former wife finding that the financial affidavit was not competent, substantial evidence of a party’s income if the party testifies that the financial affidavit is not accurate. In this case, the former husband executed his financial affidavit on February 7, three days before he filed his petition for dissolution of marriage. At trial, the former husband testified that he received a raise of $5,000 per year that was not included in the financial affidavit.
The former husband responded that he testified at trial that the raise was included in the financial documents that he submitted to former wife in discovery (which would have included the financial affidavit). However, the appeals court noted that this argument was not supported by the trial transcript. For that reason, the trial court’s finding that the former husband’s income was as reflected in his financial affidavit was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
The appeals court thus reversed the trial court’s finding concerning the husband’s gross monthly income, and remanded the issue with instructions to the trial court to increase the former husband’s gross yearly income by $5,000. Thus, the court would have to recalculate child support and alimony in accord with the new findings.
Alimony award
The former wife argued initially that the court failed to calculate the former husband’s income properly for the purposes of determining alimony and child support. The former wife also argued that the trial court failed to make specific findings regarding each party’s net income and base its findings on statutory requirements. In this case, statutory requirements require that the trial court assess the former wife’s need for alimony payments against the former husband’s ability to make alimony payments. The appeals court found that the former wife was correct and that the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings in accord with Florida law (§ 61.08, Fla. Stat.)
Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today
Westchase Law, P.A. represents the interests of Tampa residents who are seeking to divorce. We can help with all aspects of your divorce including the equitable distribution of the marital estate, spousal maintenance (alimony), child custody, and child support. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.
Source:
casetext.com/case/reese-v-reese-63?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202023&jxs=fl&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&tab=keyword