DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STACEY PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN PARKER,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-2736

January 17, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James S. Moody, 

III, Judge.

Megan Powell and Kristin M. Rhodus of Rhodus Law Firm, PLLC, St. 

Petersburg, for Appellant.

Ingrid Hooglander of Brandon Legal Group, PLLC, Brandon, for Appellee.

KHOUZAM, Judge. 

Stacey Parker (the Former Wife) appeals the amended final 

judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Justin Parker (the Former 

Husband), challenging the alimony award. Because it appears on the 

face of the record that the alimony award was based on gross income, we 

reverse and remand for the trial court to revisit its alimony calculation.
2

The parties were married on May 5, 2007, in Pinellas County. The 

Former Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage with minor child 

on October 11, 2019. The Former Husband filed an answer and 

counterpetition. On February 2, 2022, the parties entered into a partial 

mediated marital settlement agreement resolving all pending issues 

between them except for alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The 

court ratified the agreement. A final hearing was held on the remaining 

issues, and the amended final judgment of dissolution was entered on 

August 20, 2022. The trial court awarded the Former Wife durational 

alimony of $1,696.21 per month for five years.

On appeal, the Former Wife argues that the trial court erred by 

basing the alimony award on gross income instead of net income. 

"Basing an alimony award on gross income rather than net income is 

reversible error." Adams v. Adams, 340 So. 3d 551, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2022) (quoting Hampson v. Hampson, 310 So. 3d 161, 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2021)). This is because "[a]n award of alimony must be based on the 

income that is available to the party, i.e., the party's net monthly 

income." Id. (quoting Moore v. Moore, 157 So. 3d 435, 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2015)). 

The amended final judgment in this case plainly states that the 

circuit court used the parties' gross incomes to calculate their need and 

ability to pay:

The [c]ourt finds that Husband's gross monthly income is as 

follows: a base wage of $6,249.00 and imputed commissions 

in the amount of $2,500.00. The [c]ourt finds that Wife's 

gross monthly income is imputed to $1,535.41. The [c]ourt 

further finds that Wife is voluntarily unemployed or 

underemployed and has not been diligent in finding 

employment. The [c]ourt further finds based upon testimony 

received and the evidence presented, specifically the Financial 

Affidavits of the Parties and the testimony received, that 
3

Husband has the ability to pay durational alimony in the 

amount of $1,696.21 a month for a period of five (5) years (60 

months), even though the [c]ourt finds that the Wife's need for 

alimony is $3,158.59 per month.

(Emphasis added.) 

The Former Husband argues that the Former Wife cannot show 

error because the record does not include a complete transcript of the 

final hearing and the record before us indicates that the trial court did in 

fact consider net income. But the record evidence on this point is 

unclear, such that we cannot say with any certainty that this is a mere 

scrivener's error. And "[t]he absence of a transcript does not hinder our 

review when a legal error plainly appears on the face of the record." 

Ferry v. E-Z Cashing, LLC, 361 So. 3d 905, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). 

Because the final judgment plainly states that the court used the 

incorrect type of income to calculate alimony and nothing else in the 

record clearly establishes to the contrary, this error appears on the face 

of the record, and we must reverse and remand for the trial court to 

revisit its findings on this point.

On remand, the trial court shall revisit its alimony calculation, 

setting forth its findings in detail and taking additional evidence if 

necessary. "[T]he court should make detailed factual findings in support 

of its determination of need and ability to pay." Horowitz v. Horowitz, 

273 So. 3d 263, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). The findings must allow for 

meaningful appellate review of the amount of alimony awarded, see 

Ketcher v. Ketcher, 188 So. 3d 991, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), and how the 

court arrived at that amount, see Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So. 2d 208, 

209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded with instructions. 
4

NORTHCUTT and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

__________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.