Background
Lorrine Nicole Golliner and David W. Golliner were married for twelve years and share two minor children. The Wife filed for dissolution in March 2022. After a marital settlement agreement resolved equitable distribution issues, the parties proceeded to trial in May 2024 on alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees. The Wife, age thirty-nine, had not worked in any capacity for seven years and had not worked full-time in ten years, instead maintaining the family home and caring for the children. She holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration and previously earned a maximum of $44,000 annually. The Husband, age thirty-eight, is a senior development engineer earning between $224,000 and $332,000 annually, with income composed of salary, annual bonuses, and restricted stock shares.
A domestic violence incident occurred shortly after the Wife filed for dissolution. The Wife testified that the Husband attempted to choke her, and she obtained an injunction against him. The Wife testified that this incident caused her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. She attempted part-time work six months after the incident but left two months later because PTSD symptoms made employment too difficult. At trial, she remained under the care of several physicians and was taking medication and undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s awards on three issues. First, regarding alimony: the trial court awarded bridge-the-gap alimony of $4,060 per month for two years, but the court reversed this, finding it unsupported by competent evidence. The trial court’s conclusion that the Wife’s medical concerns would “subside” and that she was using her PTSD as a “crutch” lacked evidentiary support. The Wife had been unemployed for ten years and required rehabilitation assistance—not merely a short-term transition—making bridge-the-gap alimony inappropriate. Instead, the Wife qualifies for durational alimony lasting up to seven years (sixty percent of the twelve-year marriage). The trial court also failed to make specific written findings regarding the Wife’s monthly needs despite her filing three financial affidavits with varying amounts; the court arbitrarily awarded an amount lower than her counseled submissions without explanation.
Second, on child support: the trial court erred in calculating the Husband’s income based solely on his 2023 financial affidavit showing $224,172, which was both his lowest income for the preceding five years and lower than his 2023 tax return showing $248,000. The Husband’s income 2019-2022 ranged from $300,000 to $330,000, with only 2020 showing a dip. While trial courts may average fluctuating bonus/commission income, the court must explain its choice when multiple years’ documentation exists. The trial court made no findings justifying its selection of the lowest year.
Third, on attorney’s fees: the trial court summarily denied the Wife’s request without holding the separate hearing it had promised the parties at trial. This violated their stipulation and is error requiring remand for a full hearing on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- Bridge-the-gap alimony requires an “identifiable short-term need” resolved within two years; long-term unemployment and need for job-search assistance, training, and skill-updating constitute a rehabilitative need requiring durational alimony instead.
- Trial courts must make specific, detailed written findings supporting alimony awards, including the obligee’s monthly needs and obligor’s ability to pay, with findings inconsistent across financial affidavits requiring explanation rather than arbitrary selection.
- When a spouse’s income fluctuates due to bonuses or commissions, trial courts must cite competent evidence and make findings explaining why they selected a particular year’s income rather than averaging; using the lowest year without explanation is an abuse of discretion.
- A trial court stipulation to reserve attorney’s fees for a separate hearing is binding, and summary denial without that hearing is error.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that alimony awards must be tethered to specific evidence about the recipient’s actual needs and the obligor’s documented ability to pay. Courts cannot dismiss documented medical conditions as exaggeration or “crutches” without evidentiary support, particularly where the recipient has been out of the workforce for a decade. The decision also clarifies that bridge-the-gap alimony—limited to two years and non-modifiable—is inappropriate when a spouse requires rehabilitation, training, and substantial reentry assistance; durational alimony is the proper vehicle for longer-term economic assistance.
The income-calculation ruling is particularly significant for child support determinations when a payor’s income is variable. Trial courts may not simply select the lowest documented year without explanation or decline to average multiple years’ income from reliable sources. This protects payees from inconsistent awards based on selective use of data and ensures child support obligations reflect the payor’s reasonably expected earnings rather than anomalous low years.