Court Opinion

ID: 9411291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:05:01.263712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.833322
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                             RYAN CROUSE,
                               Appellant,

                                     v.

                           NANCY L. CROUSE,
                               Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-2070

                              [July 26, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Natasha DePrimo, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE17001320.

    Gustavo E. Frances, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

  Vanessa L. Prieto of Vanessa L. Prieto Law Offices, LLC, Fort
Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   The Former Husband appeals the circuit court’s alimony award in the
Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. He argues the circuit court
erred because it (a) failed to make specific findings about the parties’ net
incomes, (b) improperly relied on the Former Husband’s gross income in
determining alimony, and (c) left the Former Husband with substantially
less net income than the Former Wife after the alimony award, without
written findings justifying exceptional circumstances. We agree the circuit
court failed to make specific findings about the parties’ net income and,
without specific findings about net income, we cannot determine whether
the judgment left the Former Husband with substantially less income. As
a result, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further
proceedings.

   After a hearing, the circuit court ordered the Former Husband to pay
the Former Wife $1,200 monthly in durational alimony for seven years.
When it approved a statement in place of a transcript 1, the circuit court

1 A statement of evidence was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.200(b)(5).
explained that:

      Based on the evidence presented, the Court made a finding
      that [the Former Husband] had a surplus in income, but the
      specific amount is not reflected in the final judgment . . . [and
      the] finding as to the surplus was based upon the financial
      affidavit, the testimony provided, and other financial
      information that was produced as evidence. In accordance
      with the default that was entered, the [Former Husband]
      procedurally did not contest the [Former Wife’s] need nor his
      ability to pay alimony. The Court determined the amount of
      alimony based upon the filed financial affidavits, the
      testimony provided, and the other financial information that
      was submitted. The amount of alimony . . . is $1,200.00 per
      month. The amount of temporary child support . . . [is]
      $1625.00 per month . . . [and] [t]he amount of [gross] income
      listed in the [Former Husband’s] financial affidavit is
      $3900.00.

    On appeal, the Former Husband argues the circuit court erred when it
failed to address the parties’ net incomes to determine the alimony award,
and that the alimony award left him with substantially less net income
than the Former Wife in violation of section 61.08(9), Florida Statutes.

    First, we agree that under section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes, in
determining whether to award alimony, a trial court must make a specific
factual determination about one party’s need for alimony, and the other
party’s ability to pay alimony—and this determination must be based on
the parties’ net incomes. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2022); Conlin v. Conlin,
212 So. 3d 487, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tritschler v. Tritschler, 273 So.
3d 1161, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). As such, a finding on the parties’ net
incomes is required. See Reese v. Reese, No. 6D23-201, 2023 WL
3400377, at *6 (Fla. 6th DCA May 12, 2023) (holding that the lower
“court’s failure to make specific findings regarding the parties’ net incomes
necessitates reversal of the alimony award”). In addition to making no
findings about the parties’ net incomes, the circuit court’s statement
references the Former Husband’s gross income, not his net income, and
“[a]n alimony award based on gross income must be reversed.” Hanson v.
Hanson, 217 So. 3d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citing Moore v. Moore,
157 So. 3d 435, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)).

   Second, an alimony award “may not leave the payor with significantly
less net income than the net income of the recipient unless there are
written findings of exceptional circumstances.” Rabadan v. Rabadan, 322

                                      2
So. 3d 660, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (emphasis omitted) (quoting §
61.08(9), Fla. Stat.). Because the circuit court did not make a finding
about the parties’ net incomes, we cannot determine whether the alimony
award leaves the Former Husband with significantly less net income.

   Therefore, the circuit court’s final judgment is reversed, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings.

   Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                            *        *         *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     3