Court Opinion

ID: 9919050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 15:02:41.061258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:01.309774
License: Public Domain

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.
      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

                                     2
      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.

                                      3
NORTHCUTT and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

                       __________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      4