Vitalis v. Vitalis, 5D01-339.
Citation | 799 So.2d 1127 |
Decision Date | 16 November 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 5D01-339.,5D01-339. |
Parties | Frank VITALIS, Appellant, v. Lesli VITALIS, Appellee. |
Court | Court 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). 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:
§ 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:
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-
Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
...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
...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
...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
-
Alimony and support
...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? .
...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.
...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
...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......