Beal v. Beal

• Decision Date: 05 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. 5D13–936.,5D13–936.
• Citation: 146 So.3d 153
• Parties: Connie BEAL, Appellant, v. Robert BEAL, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

146 So.3d 153

Connie BEAL, Appellant

v.Robert BEAL, Appellee.

No. 5D13–936.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 5, 2014.

Rhonda D. Portwood, of Law Office of R. Portwood, PL, Inverness, for Appellant.

Patricia M. Moring, of Moring & Moring, P.A., Crystal River, for Appellee.

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Connie Beal (Ms. Beal) timely appeals the trial court's final order on dissolution of marriage. Determining that the trial court erred in awarding alimony and attorney's fees, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Ms. Beal filed a petition seeking dissolution of her twelve-year marriage to Robert Beal. There were no children born of this marriage, so all of the issues tried below were financial.

Pursuant to the parties' Partial Meditated Settlement Agreement, Mr. Beal received sole ownership of the marital residence; however, he agreed to refinance the residence and to give $4,000 of the proceeds to Ms. Beal. Because the parties could not reach an agreement regarding alimony or the payment of Ms. Beal's attorney's fees, the matter proceeded to trial.

Ms. Beal testified that she is totally disabled from a severe arthritic condition in her spine and, as a result of her condition, she is unable to work. She receives disability payments in the amount of $1,189 per month. Ms. Beal testified that a villa comparable to her marital home would cost approximately $850 per month. Ms. Beal's counsel introduced into evidence the parties' tax returns for 2007–2012. Those tax returns indicate that Mr. Beal's adjusted gross income ranged from approximately $91,000 to over $101,000 between 2007 and 2011. Mr. Beal's 2012 W–2 indicated that he earned $94,289.80. Nevertheless, Mr. Beal testified that his salary was only $72,000 per year. He explained that the discrepancy between his current salary and the pay listed on his W–2 and tax returns is due to a decrease in his travel expenses and overtime pay. Mr. Beal testified that he no longer travels for his job and that overtime pay is no longer available.

Upon conclusion of the evidence, the trial court drafted a final order, ruling as follows:

Mr. Beal shall pay Ms. Beal $300.00 per month in bridge-the-gap alimony for two years, beginning March 1, 2013 and ending February 1, 2015. Ms. Beal will have additional funds from the settlement agreement to help in establishing a new residence. In six years, she will have an additional $1450.00 per month from Mr. Beal's pension.

As to attorney fees, Ms. Beal has paid her attorney $1600.00, but still owes an additional $2385.00 after trial. Ms. Beal has very limited income at this point, and Mr. Beal will have to help in those fees. He shall pay $1200.00 of her attorney fees, to be paid no less than $100.00 per month ... Ms. Beal will be responsible for the balance of the fee.

This appeal timely followed.

Although Ms. Beal raises a number of issues, we need to address only two. First, Ms. Beal argues that the trial court erred in awarding an amount of alimony which requires her to use her equitable distribution assets to pay for certain living expenses. We agree.

A trial court has considerable discretion in determining an award of alimony, and that determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Marshall v. Marshall, 953 So.2d 23, 25–26 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) ). However, whether a trial court applied the correct legal standard is a question of law reviewed de novo. Henderson v. Henderson, 905 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

In its final order, the trial court acknowledged that Ms. Beal's...