Hausdorff v. Hausdorff, 4D04-4334.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D04-4334.,4D04-4334. |
| Citation | 913 So.2d 1267 |
| Parties | Arinn Z. HAUSDORFF, Appellant, v. David W. HAUSDORFF, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Susan Greenhawt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 02-9616(37)(93).
Lawrence P. Zolot, Hollywood, for appellant.
Seth E. Schneiderman of Seth E. Schneiderman, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
The parties were married on October 6, 1992. The husband filed for divorce in April, 2002. The couple has three minor children. At the time of the final hearing, the wife was 37 and in good health.
The trial judge denied the wife's request for permanent alimony. The court awarded $4,500 a month in rehabilitative alimony for four years. This award was based on a rehabilitation plan that the wife would attend Nova Southeastern University to become a media specialist. Also, the court required the husband to pay the wife's tuition, estimated at $12,000, and $1,200 for textbooks. If the wife chose not to proceed with the rehabilitation plan during the four year period, the husband's obligation to pay the tuition and textbooks would expire.
In addition to rehabilitative alimony, the final judgment required the husband to pay $2,000 per month in child support, to provide medical insurance for the children, to pay 100% of their reasonable and necessary uncovered medical expenses, and to cover 100% of certain child care costs while the wife was actually working or attending school. The judgment ordered the husband to keep an existing insurance policy in force to secure his alimony and child support obligations.
The wife first argues that competent substantial evidence did not support the trial court's rulings; she points to language in the final judgment where the court wrote that it could not "put an exact number on the Husband's future income." We are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the husband, the prevailing party below.
The husband worked in the securities industry. Due to the 2000 stock market decline, his income dropped. The husband's income after business expenses was as high as $300,000 in 2000 and as low as $93,000 in 2003. In 2004, the husband made a base salary of $12,000 plus $89,000 in incentives and commissions. The court did not find that the husband would make "in the foreseeable days as little as he testified" or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, SC14–1905.
...that there was “ample credible evidence adduced at the trial to sustain the trial judge's findings”); see also Hausdorff v. Hausdorff, 913 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 172 So.3d 378the challenged judgment in evaluating whether com......
- T.J.J. v. State, 3D05-225.
-
Appellate court trends in rehabilitative alimony: 10 years later.
...particularly good illustrations of what to consider when structuring a rehabilitative plan. For instance, in Hausdorff v. Hausdorff, 913 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District Court affirmed a rehabilitative award in which the rehabilitative plan included the specific sc......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...fashioning equitable distribution only if the misconduct resulted in wasting or depletion of marital assets. • Hausdorff v. Hausdorff, 913 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). No abuse of discretion in failing to award wife greater share in equitable distribution because husband had intentional......