Laliberte v. Laliberte, 96-960

Decision Date22 August 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-960,96-960
Citation698 So.2d 1291
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D2011 Michael LALIBERTE, Appellant, v. Deborah LALIBERTE, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Sharon Lee Stedman of Sharon Lee Stedman, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Barry Apfelbaum, Orlando, for Appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Michael Laliberte appeals orders which denied his petition to modify a final judgment of dissolution, found him in willful contempt of court for failing to make ordered child support and alimony payments, and ordered him to pay $39,300 in arrearages. We reverse because the trial judge's findings of fact demonstrate that the former husband's reduction in income was involuntary.

Michael and Deborah Laliberte were divorced on 17 February 1992. The parties entered a child custody, separation and property settlement agreement which was approved by the court and incorporated into the final judgment. The settlement agreement required the former husband to pay the former wife $3,000 monthly alimony, increasing to $4,500 on 10 September 1995, increasing again to $6,000, then decreasing to $4,700 on 31 December 2005. The alimony payments were to continue until the former wife remarried, either party died, both parties agreed in writing, or if changed by court order. The settlement agreement also required the former husband to pay $1,500 per child per month in child support until each child reached majority, became self-supporting, married or died. The child support was to become alimony as each child turned 18.

At the time the former husband signed the property settlement agreement, he was employed as a podiatrist with the Orlando Foot and Ankle Clinic making approximately $14,000 gross per month. In the Spring of 1993, the clinic notified the former husband that his status would change from contractor to employee. His monthly take-home income was reduced to between $9,000 and $10,000. Even with a reduction in income, the former husband was able to maintain child support and alimony payments. Unfortunately, the former husband realized his income would continue to decline because of a business reorganization. In February 1994, he was notified that a substantial source of his income from surgical procedures was being reduced from 70% to 35%. Because of his contractual non-compete agreement, the former husband was not able to supplement his income by working as a podiatrist in the Central Florida area. As his ability to earn decreased, the former husband began to seek other sources of income.

In 1994, the former husband learned of an opportunity to purchase an on-going medical practice in Pennsylvania. Before he purchased the business, the former husband took and passed the Pennsylvania medical exam in June of 1994. The former husband hired Medical Mavin, a professional firm that evaluated the practice, and a CPA to review the financial statements and affidavits of the business. The records appeared to be in perfect order. The former husband also had the materials reviewed by the Money Store, from whom he was seeking a loan, and the Small Business Administration. No one questioned the income or records of the practice. After completing his investigation, the former husband purchased the practice.

Immediately after the former husband closed on the practice, he noticed fiscal irregularities in the business. There were improper Medicare charges and billings for services not rendered. There were myriad other problems that substantially reduced the former husband's income. In fact, after the former husband took over the practice in 1995, he had no income.

The former wife was kept abreast of these developments and told the former husband that she would waive alimony and child support for April 1995. She also offered to work in his Pennsylvania office to help him until he could get on his feet. The former husband's business deteriorated to the extent that he was not able to maintain his three business locations. He was forced to close one location because he could not pay utilities. The former husband's November 1995 financial affidavit, which was introduced during the hearing, showed monthly income of $3,000, monthly expenses of $33,860, and assets totalling $168,200. The former husband eventually filed bankruptcy in Pennsylvania and sued the doctor who sold him the practice.

The former wife filed a motion for contempt which alleged that the former husband failed and refused to make child support and alimony payments for April and May 1995. It further alleged that the former...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Woolf v. Woolf, Case No. 4D04-3403 (FL 3/9/2005), Case No. 4D04-3403.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2005
    ...has a track record of earnings, it has been a poor one in recent years through no apparent fault of his own. Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So. 2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), is factually similar to this case. There, the former husband was forced to quit his practice in Florida due to busi......
  • Woolf v. Woolf, 4D04-3403.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 2005
    ...has a track record of earnings, it has been a poor one in recent years through no apparent fault of his own. Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), is factually similar to this case. There, the former husband was forced to quit his practice in Florida due to busin......
  • Wilson v. Wilson, Case No. 2D08-3184 (Fla. App. 4/21/2010)
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 2010
    ...spouse must act in good faith to retain income that would allow him to meet his financial obligations. See Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So. 2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (explaining that change in circumstances was not voluntary where the former husband did not quit his medical practice ......
  • Burkley v. Burkley, 5D04-2172.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 30, 2005
    ...sufficient, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature. Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811, 814 (Fla.1997); Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The burden of establishing this change rests on the party seeking modification. Burdette v. Burdette, 681 So.2d 86......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT