Kovar v. Kovar
| Decision Date | 14 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | 93-2183,Nos. 93-1180,s. 93-1180 |
| Citation | 648 So.2d 177 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2603 Stuart B. KOVAR, Appellant, v. Rochelle KOVAR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Howard Hochsztein of Howard Hochsztein, P.A., Tamarac, for appellant.
Thomas N. Wells of Thomas N. Wells, P.A., Lauderhill, for appellee.
By this appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's final judgment which imputed to him a yearly income of $40,000, distributed marital assets, and awarded the petitioner wife permanent monthly alimony, lump sum alimony, and attorney's fees and court costs. We affirm except as to the award of attorney's fees and court costs.
The parties spent most of their 33-year marriage in New York, establishing a comfortable standard of living with the husband, an electrical engineer, as the primary provider. Ultimately, they decided to semi-retire in Florida. After moving to Florida in April, 1991, the husband informed his wife, still in New York, that he wanted a divorce. His wife nevertheless moved to Florida in what proved to be a futile attempt to salvage their marriage. At the time of the final judgment, the husband, who had an income of $90,000 in 1990, was earning only $20,640 and was making only modest attempts to obtain a higher paying job. His relatively unskilled wife was earning approximately $5,000 per year, having left a $25,000 per year waitressing job in New York. The husband paid his wife no support during the seventeen months between his announcement that he wanted a divorce and the final judgment.
The trial court specifically found:
[T]hat the husband is capable of earning more than he is presently earning and that he has failed to use his best efforts to secure more profitable employment. The husband has the ability to remedy this situation. The husband can, through more diligent and bona fide efforts, find more significant employment. The husband is currently and voluntarily underemployed. The court specifically finds that the primary reason for the husband's underemployment is his expressed desire not to seek additional and better employment if it would increase his ability to pay his wife of 33 years support for her needs and expenses.
Accordingly, the trial judge imputed an annual income of $40,000 and awarded the wife $1,500 per month permanent alimony.
The trial court also awarded the husband assets valued at $118,428, the wife assets valued at $82,940, and--out of a remaining $171,381 joint investment (reduced by a $25,000 withdrawal shared equally by the parties)--awarded the wife $35,489 to "equalize the disparity between the parties' retained assets." The court then awarded the wife half of the remaining balance, plus an additional $40,000 "lump sum" allocation. Finally, in a postjudgment decree, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's remaining attorney's fees and court costs.
The trial court's imputation of income is supported both by law and the evidence presented. When a husband obligated to pay support voluntarily reduces his income, the trial court has discretion to impute to him the income he is capable of earning. Work v. Provine, 632 So.2d 1119, 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Maddux v. Maddux, 495 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). It hardly bears repeating that in reviewing the trial court's discretion, this court will only disturb those rulings which fail to satisfy the general test of reasonableness. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). The record in this case reflects competent substantial evidence upon which the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the husband could earn $40,000 a year. The husband had earned $90,000 the year before moving to Florida, and well over $40,000 annually for the decade preceding the move. Although he did not voluntarily terminate his employment in New York, once he moved to Florida, the husband sent out few resumes, went on few interviews, and worked fewer than 30 hours per week. He also testified that he did not want to earn more money if his wife would benefit from his labor. Therefore, it was well within the trial court's discretion to impute such an income.
Nor did the award of $1,500 monthly in permanent alimony represent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Each case's resolution depends on its individual facts. Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In determining the award of alimony, the court below properly considered all relevant factors, including the financial resources of the parties, and all sources of income available to either party. See Sec. 61.08(d), (g), Fla.Stat. (1991). The husband argues the alimony award here was excessive when added to the $730 the court ordered him to pay monthly toward the mortgage and maintenance of the Florida residence. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. Brock
...494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1979).21 Reich v. Reich, 652 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Gomez v. Gomez, 642 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Stowell v. Stowell, 604 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Green v. Green,......
-
Christianson v. Christianson
...employment under the circumstances, then the court can properly impute income to that supporting spouse ..."); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1994) (holding that when a supporting spouse voluntarily reduces his income, it is in the trial court's discretion to impute in......
-
Thilem v. Thilem, 94-1936
...cannot accurately evaluate if the husband is in the best financial position to pay for the wife's attorney's fees. See Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Armstrong v. Armstrong; 623 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Brogdon ......
-
Freilich v. Freilich
...may impute income upon a showing that there is a capability to earn more by the use of more diligent efforts."); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ("[W]hen a husband obligated to pay support voluntarily reduces his income, the trial court has discretion to impute to him......
-
Alimony and support
...DCA 1998) (alimony award of 38 percent of husband’s income is not excessive or beyond husband’s ability to pay alimony); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (alimony award representing 57 percent of husband’s net income is not excessive; trial court properly imputed income to......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...distribution scheme; trial court listed and valued marital assets but did not address marital liabilities at all); Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(unequal distribution of marital assets to wife affirmed when court found that her employment, career and opportunities had be......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...opportunities of either party is a statutory factor for the court’s consideration. [§61.075(1)(d), Fla. Stat.; Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (unequal distribution of marital assets to wife affirmed when court found that her employment, career and opportunities had been ......