Bronson v. Bronson, 4D00-2454.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-2454.,4D00-2454. |
| Citation | 793 So.2d 1109 |
| Parties | Joseph Edwin BRONSON, Appellant, v. Susan R. BRONSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald M. Hand, Kissimmee, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Joseph Bronson appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm, but remand for correction of the final judgment.
The parties were married in 1975, in Osceola County. They resided in Okeechobee County at the time of the dissolution. On November 6, 1998, appellee filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. At the time of the final hearing, their two children, ages 24 and 25, lived with appellee, as did the parties' granddaughter. Appellee is the sole caretaker of the parties' adult son, who became permanently paralyzed after he received an injury in an automobile accident. The son receives a disability income of approximately $650.00 per month. The daughter, at the time of the final hearing, was contributing $50.00 per week to appellee, but planned to move with her child by September 1, 2000.
Appellant worked for U.S. Sugar Corporation from November, 1989 until March 30, 2000. Prior to the dissolution, he earned in excess of $41,000 per year supervising a harvest crew of twenty-one. Appellant testified that he was terminated from this employment because he "couldn't" go to work or concentrate on his duties due to his family's unwillingness to associate with him. Although counseled by his employer on March 28, 2000 about his absenteeism, appellant reported for work only two more days and did not return after March 30, 2000. By his own admission, he also did not contact his employer to advise that he would be absent, despite his knowledge that failure to notify the employer regarding an absence violated company policy. Appellant admitted that before his termination letter was mailed to him, he had already made arrangements to have his mail forwarded from his current residence in Canal Point to St. Cloud. Appellant then moved to St. Cloud to live with his mother. He began fishing to earn a living and earned an average of $200 a week. According to appellant, he had been job-hunting, but it was difficult to find a better paying job.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imputed income to him based on a job from which he had been terminated. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred when it awarded permanent periodic alimony to the former wife without evidence of a need for that amount of alimony. Finally, he argues that the final judgment contains mathematical errors.
The trial court was free to accept or reject appellant's testimony concerning the termination from his employment and his attempts to obtain employment consistent with his previous job. In this case, the trial court found that appellant had caused his termination of employment and imputed an annual income of $42,000 to appellant consistent with his former employment at U.S. Sugar Corporation. In reviewing the trial court's discretion, we will disturb only those rulings that fail to satisfy the general test of reasonableness. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). We conclude, on the record before us, that the evidence presented at the final hearing supports the trial court's findings of fact and rulings as a matter of law.
A claim that a spouse has arranged his financial circumstances so as to avoid paying the payee spouse is a valid matter to be considered by the trial court in determining the payor's real ability to pay. See Smith v. Smith, 737 So.2d 641, 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In the present case, the record supports the trial court's imputation of income to appellant, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of permanent periodic alimony to appellee. See Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So.2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Where a former husband has an ability to earn if he so desires, the trial judge should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christianson v. Christianson
...a supporting spouse voluntarily reduces his income, it is in the trial court's discretion to impute income); Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (same); In re Marriage of Carrick, 560 N.W.2d 407, 410 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (holding that a trial court may impute a par......
-
Freilich v. Freilich
...see Andrews v. Andrews, 867 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Davis v. Davis, 691 So.2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ("A court, however, may impute income upon a showing that there i......
-
Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, No. 4D03-2678
...may consider a party's attempt to arrange his other finances to avoid paying a spouse alimony or child support. Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Where a party voluntarily reduces income under these circumstances, income may be imputed, provided the imputation is......
-
Damask v. Ryabchenko
...the husband's termination was voluntary because it was caused by his own deliberate repeated misconduct."); Bronson v. Bronson , 793 So. 2d 1109, 1110–11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the trial court's finding that the husband had voluntarily "caused his termination of employment" through ......
-
Alimony and support
...that he earned on a job from which he had been terminated, based on a finding that he caused the termination. [ Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 870 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (record did not support imputation of income to husband; wife’s fi......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...Garces v. 24 years 54 $40,484 Garces per year; 704 So. 2d 1106 $5,000 from (Fla. 3d DCA part-time 1998) job Bronson 23 years v. Bronson 793 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) Baker v. Baker 18 years early 40s $24,000 763 So. 2d 493 per year (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) Moorehead v. 17 years 43 $1000 ne......
-
Temporary relief
...since 1996 and was still living with his parents at time of final hearing).] Many cases support imputation. [ E.g., Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (no abuse of discretion in imputing to husband salary he earned on job from which he had been terminated based on findi......