Background
Amanda Sheff appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising six issues including the trial court’s findings regarding the husband’s ability to pay durational alimony, the wife’s need for alimony, and income imputation to the wife. The parties married in 2009 and had two children.
At the November 2024 final hearing, the husband, age fifty-nine, had worked for a global credit card company for approximately eight years. His positions included senior vice president of all accounts, senior vice president of global strategy, and vice president of chief of staff. His chief-of-staff position was eliminated in November 2023, and he was placed on a temporary special project assignment ending December 31, 2024. It was unrefuted that his employment would terminate the month after the hearing, with no further positions offered. The company was downsizing, and the husband’s skills did not align with remaining open positions.
The husband’s CPA ascribed a median income of $62,350 per year based on U.S. Census data. The wife presented no evidence of the husband’s potential earning levels or job prospects—only testimony about his past earnings.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s denial of durational alimony, finding no abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that the trial court had unrefuted evidence before it that the husband’s employment was terminating imminently and that no replacement employment had been secured. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not required to base its alimony determination on past earnings that were no longer available. The wife’s failure to present any evidence of the husband’s future earning capacity left the trial court with only the CPA’s median-income estimate as a basis for assessing ability to pay.
The court also affirmed the income imputation to the wife and the trial court’s other rulings, and dismissed one issue for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying alimony based on inability to pay where unrefuted evidence shows the payor spouse’s employment is imminently terminating with no replacement position secured.
- The party seeking alimony bears the burden of presenting evidence of the other spouse’s future earning capacity—past earnings alone may be insufficient where current employment circumstances have materially changed.
- Trial courts may rely on median-income data rather than historical earnings when determining a spouse’s ability to pay alimony post-separation.
Why It Matters
This case provides important guidance for family law practitioners handling dissolution cases during periods of corporate downsizing and workforce reduction. It confirms that Florida courts will look at present and reasonably anticipated earning capacity—not just historical compensation—when assessing ability to pay alimony. For practitioners representing the spouse seeking alimony, the case underscores the importance of presenting affirmative evidence about the other spouse’s employability, transferable skills, and job market prospects rather than relying solely on prior earnings history.