Vitalis v. Vitalis, 5D01-339.

Citation799 So.2d 1127
Decision Date16 November 2001
Docket NumberNo. 5D01-339.,5D01-339.
PartiesFrank VITALIS, Appellant, v. Lesli VITALIS, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

C. Michael Duncan of the Law Offices of Stephen R. Caplan, Orlando, for Appellant.

Timothy R. Askew, Jr. of Hutchison, Mamele & Coover, P.A., Sanford, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, R. B., J.

Frank Vitalis, the husband, appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. Specifically, he contests the award of permanent and rehabilitative alimony to Lesli Vitalis, the wife. He also contests the award of attorney's fees and costs to the wife.

The parties were married in 1980 and separated in 1999. They had two children, a daughter, age 16, and a son, age 10. The parties amicably resolved all issues concerning custody, visitation, child support and division of the marital property. The issues presented to the trial court concerned the wife's request for rehabilitative and permanent alimony and the payment of attorney's fees and costs.

Both the husband and the wife were approximately 40 years old at the time of the divorce. During the marriage they enjoyed a comfortable life. They owned two residences, took vacations, and drove newer vehicles. Their children attended private schools. Throughout the marriage, the wife worked part-time outside the home while acting as a homemaker and primary caregiver to their two children. The wife earned a high school diploma and had completed a few courses at trade schools and community colleges. Shortly after their marriage, they moved to Texas where she worked part-time, often earning only minimum wage, as a waitress, medical assistant, and receptionist. Upon their return to Florida in 1990, their son was born and the wife stayed home to care of him. She later returned to work full-time as a medical assistant; however, the demands of that job proved too great along with the responsibility of caring for two young children. Thereafter, she worked part-time as a waitress until 1996 when she took a part-time position with the Wekiva Christian School, as a teacher's assistant. Subsequent to filing for dissolution in August 2000, she began working full-time at the school earning $7.50 an hour. The wife's net monthly salary was about $1,083 at the time of trial. The wife had a rehabilitation plan. She testified that she planned to return to college part-time to pursue a college degree in education while working part-time and caring for her son. She estimated that the total cost of her education would be approximately $13,000 and that it would take about seven years to earn her degree. She requested rehabilitative alimony of $300 per month for seven years.

During much of the parties' marriage, the husband was employed by Southland Corporation. Southland Corporation owns and operates 7-Eleven stores. While employed by Southland, the husband worked as a refrigeration mechanic, a group salesman, a dispatcher, a field service technician, and as a service supervisor. In April 1993, the husband resigned from Southland and started All-Rite Services. All-Rite Services provides maintenance for gas pumps at 7-Eleven stores. The husband's company also provides maintenance for Southland's office buildings.

During the course of the litigation, the husband filed three financial affidavits with the trial court. In the November 3, 1999 affidavit, the husband indicated that his gross monthly income was $1,230.54. In his November 9, 1999 affidavit, he showed gross monthly income of $3,107. Finally, his March 27, 2000 affidavit showed gross monthly income of $3,841.12. The husband testified that his income ranged from $3,200 to $3,800 per month.

The parties' 1998 and 1999 tax returns were received into evidence. The tax returns revealed annual adjusted income of $49,319 in 1998 and $69,296 in 1999. The trial court found that the husband's adjusted gross monthly income was $6,846. Apparently the court concluded that the husband improperly deducted certain personal expenses as business expenses, thereby reducing the adjusted gross income reflected on the tax returns.1

On November 7, 2000, the trial court dissolved the parties' marriage. The trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony of $1,200 per month, rehabilitative alimony of $300 per month for seven years, attorney's fees of $20,000, and costs of $2,028.58.

In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possess broad discretion to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1202-03. In reviewing a dissolution judgment, this court looks at the judgment as a whole in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654, 657 (Fla.1991). "It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the test is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence." Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983)).

The husband argues that the wife is not entitled to an award of rehabilitative and/or permanent alimony because the final judgment failed to contain the express findings of fact required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 61.08(1) requires the trial court to make findings of fact regarding the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting the award or denial of alimony. These factors include:

(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.
(b) The duration of the marriage.
(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
(d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
(e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.
(g) All sources of income available to either party.
The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

§ 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2000).

The trial court set forth few facts in support of its rulings granting alimony. Instead, the final judgment simply tracked the statute without providing specific factual support for most of the mandated factors. See Benters v. Benters, 655 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)

. In pertinent part, the final judgment states:

G. This is a marriage of 20 years.
H. The parties entered into a Partial Mediated Agreement on October 24, 2000 to divide the real and personal property of the marriage.
I. The Wife acknowledged a disparity of $7,000 in the division of personal property and waived any difference that is contained in the division of the property.
J. The parties entered into a Shared Parenting Agreement on October 24, 2000, whereby the parties shall exercise shared parental responsibility for the minor children of the marriage, with the Wife having primary residential responsibility for Dylan and the Husband having primary residential responsibility for Krystle. A contract schedule between the parties and the children is set forth in the Shared Parenting Agreement.
K. The Husband's 1999 and 2000 Dome ledgers and the summaries provided by counsel for Wife, which adds back into Husband's income those amounts for personal expenses, indicates the Husband has gross monthly income of $6,846.00
L. The Wife has gross monthly income of $1,082.50
M. The parties have agreed that the minor child, Dylan, shall attend private school.
N. The Wife maintains health insurance on the minor children and shall have credit for same in the child support guidelines computations.
O. Wife has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $27,024.53 and reasonable costs of $2,028.50. Husband has the ability to make a contribution towards same.
P. Based upon the length of the marriage, Wife's working sporadically throughout the marriage at part-time jobs until this past school year, the lifestyle enjoyed by the parties, the disparity of income and the Wife's inability to earn income comparable to Husband's, the Wife has shown a need for permanent alimony and the Husband has the ability to pay same.
Q. The Wife has shown a need to attend school so that she can obtain employment suitable to care for herself and Dylan. The Wife has the need for rehabilitative alimony and the Husband has the ability to pay same.

This court has consistently held that a trial court's failure to make findings of fact, as required by section 61.08, constitutes reversible error.2 See Hill v. Hooten, 776 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)

(citing Brown v. Brown, 626 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)); Miller v. Miller, 625 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So.2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Hill, we said that "[a]lthough the facts ... suggest that permanent periodic alimony should have been awarded to the Wife, we cannot say that she was entitled to receive such an award as a matter of law because the trial court failed to set forth sufficient findings of fact." Hill, 776 So.2d at 1006. The same is true here.3

The trial court found that the husband had gross monthly income of $6,8464 while the wife had gross monthly income of $1,082.50, reflecting a disparity in the parties' incomes. However, it appears that the trial court simply accepted the wife's suggested figure of the husband's monthly gross income, without making any findings to support that determination. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2004
    ...year, over four years at $700 per year, totals $5,600.00. 16. See Walker v. Walker, 818 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Vick v. Vick, 675 So.2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 17. See Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So.2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Rove......
  • Greene v. Greene
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2005
    ...15. See Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So.2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Pribble v. Pribble, 800 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Short v. Short, 747 So.2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). 16. See Weintraub v. Weintraub, 864 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), rev......
  • Layeni v. Layeni
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2003
    ...in denying an award of permanent alimony to the former wife in this relatively short-term marriage. As we said in Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001): In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possess broad discretion to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v......
  • Montgomery v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2005
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Alimony and support
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...the actual current income of each party and the need of the receiving spouse and the ability of the paying spouse. [ Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (findings of fact requirement serves two purposes—both important; first, it requires judge to determine what facts of ......
  • An update on Florida alimony case law: are alimony guidelines a part of our future? .
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 9, October 2003
    • October 1, 2003
    ...per $1,000/mo. Ordini month imputed perm. 701 So. 2d 663 alimony (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) Vitalis v. $6846 per $1,200/mo. Vitalis month perm. 799 So. 2d 1127 alimony; (Fla. 5th DCA $300/mo. 2001) rehab. alimony Kreisler v. ???-medical $2,400/mo. Kreisler, software perm. 752 So. 2d 1288 salesman ......
  • Appellate court trends in rehabilitative alimony: 10 years later.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 82 No. 9, October 2008
    • October 1, 2008
    ...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); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (9) The Fifth District initially held that rehabilitative plans should be in writing; however, the court has since held that r......
  • Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...trial judge says it is a fact. Also, the requirement for findings of fact permits a comparable fairness analysis. [ Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Jarrett v. Jarrett, 746 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(explicit factual findings concerning actual incomes attributabl......

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