Cozier v. Cozier, 2D00-2503.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-2503.,2D00-2503. |
| Citation | 819 So.2d 834 |
| Parties | Robert A. COZIER, Appellant, v. Varry M. COZIER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cynthia L. Greene of Law Offices of Cynthia L. Greene, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Varry M. Cozier, pro se.
Robert Cozier, the husband in this dissolution action, appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. He raises several issues regarding the financial aspects of the judgment. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Throughout the fifteen-year marriage, the husband was employed by Camper Corral, a business owned by his parents. The husband's annual gross income was approximately $30,000. However, he received numerous benefits through his employment that were not reflected in his salary—such as insurance, the use of a company car, and contributions to an IRA account. The wife worked as a waitress throughout most of the marriage, even after the birth of the parties' first two children. She stopped working when she was expecting twins, and after the twins' birth, she stayed home to care for the parties' four children. At the time of the final hearing, the children were eleven, four, and three years of age.
The parties were frequently unable to live within their means. Occasionally, when they encountered financial difficulties, the husband's mother would provide them with groceries, clothing, and money for household bills and the children's school tuition. Because the trial court determined that the husband's family "consistently and traditionally" provided the husband with financial benefits, it imputed the sum of $15,000 per year to the husband as additional income for the purpose of awarding alimony and child support.
The husband's arguments primarily involve the trial court's calculation of his gross income. He argues that when the trial court imputed income to him, it erred in considering the assistance his mother gave the family. We conclude that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the gifts provided by the husband's mother were related to the husband's employment. We further conclude that the record does not support the trial court's finding that these periodic gifts of food, clothing, the use of a home, and the occasional gifts of money for bills and the payment of some of the children's tuition were regularly and consistently provided to him. Accordingly, the trial court erred in including the value of these gifts as additional income imputed to the husband. Jones v. Jones, 679 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (); Elremmash v. Peterson, 676 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (same).
We find no error in the trial court's decision to include as income to the husband those regular and expected employment benefits he received—such as medical insurance, term life insurance, the use of a company car, and contributions to an IRA account. Even so, we agree with the husband that the trial court erred by failing to assign a dollar value to these in-kind contributions. See § 61.30(2)(a)(13), Fla. Stat. (1999); McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So.2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (). Thus, on remand the trial court must assign a dollar value to these regular employment benefits, with the exception of the use of a company car to which the trial court assigned a $400 monthly value. In addition, although the value of the family medical insurance provided by the husband's employment was properly added to the husband's gross income as an employment benefit, the court failed to allow a corresponding deduction for the amount of the insurance. This was error and must be remedied on remand. McDaniel, 653 So.2d at 1077.
The trial court also erred in failing to consider benefits to the wife as part of the overall child support computation. In its final judgment the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Levy, No. 2D03-2903
...that demonstrate a need for such a requirement. See Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); but see Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295, 300 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In addition, in order to justify such a requiremen......
-
Hetherington v. Hetherington
...retirement plans as income have not provided any particular rationale for including this particular benefit. See Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (holding that the trial court properly included as income to the employee parent the benefits of medical and term life......
-
Layeni v. Layeni
...insurance, must be included as income to the former husband on remand. See § 61.30(2)(a)(13), Fla. Stat. (1998); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (although the value of family medical insurance provided by the husband's employment and family business was properly adde......
-
Burnham v. Burnham, 2D03-1012.
...for such insurance the cost and availability of such insurance, as well as the financial impact upon the obligor. Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Cissel v. Cissel, 845 So.2d 993, 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Forgione v. Forgione, 845 So.2d 968, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). ......
-
Pleadings and mandatory electronic filing
...Reserved] §8:214 Health Insurance A request for health insurance to be maintained must be specifically pleaded. [ Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (court has discretion to require husband to provide wife with medical insurance for term of rehabilitative alimony, but with ......
-
An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
...v. Purvis 732 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) Walker v. 12 years None Walker 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Cozier v. 15 years Cozier 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Ingram v. 20 years 39 Ingram 750 So.2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Williams v. less than 2 limited Williams yrs. income 766 So......
-
Appellate court trends in rehabilitative alimony: 10 years later.
...Weintraub v. Weintraub, 864 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2003); Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002); Rivers v. Rivers, 785 So. 2d 752 (FLA. 5th D.C.A. 2001); Bryan v. Bryan, 765 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2000); Vitali......
-
Temporary relief
...and a new requirement in some districts. • Special circumstances which would necessitate such a security requirement. [ Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversed order requiring husband to maintain $100,000 life insurance policy on himself as security for payment of alim......