Background
James Baranowski and Lisa L. Tesh divorced after a twenty-six-year marriage during which they had one child and accumulated more than $5 million in assets. Baranowski earned substantially more than Tesh, whose career included years of part-time work after the child was born. At trial, their monthly gross incomes were approximately $20,998 and $10,640, respectively.
The amended dissolution judgment awarded Tesh six years of durational alimony payable in one lump sum, ordered Baranowski to pay child support retroactive to the parties’ separation, and granted Tesh ultimate decision-making authority for the child. Both parties appealed, raising multiple challenges to the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the lump-sum durational alimony award. Competent substantial evidence supported Tesh’s need, including a monthly deficit of $1,924 after the trial court removed certain claimed expenses. The child’s expenses had not been counted twice, and Tesh’s health savings account contributions were used for qualified family medical expenses rather than speculative savings. The court also held that Florida’s alimony statute did not require a finding of “unusual circumstances” or “special necessity” before ordering lump-sum payment. Given the income disparity, Tesh’s career sacrifices, and Baranowski’s ability to pay, the award was within the trial court’s discretion.
The court reversed the child-support award because the trial court failed to include the alimony award when calculating the parties’ incomes, as Florida law requires. It also accepted the parties’ concessions that the judgment was internally inconsistent about ongoing support after Baranowski recouped an overpayment and that ultimate decision-making authority had not been tried. The case was remanded for recalculation of child support and a new hearing on decision-making authority; the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A court may order durational alimony paid as a lump sum without expressly finding unusual circumstances or special necessity.
- Child support must be calculated after alimony because the alimony award affects the parties’ incomes for support purposes.
- Ultimate parental decision-making authority cannot stand when the issue was not tried; the trial court must conduct a hearing on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms Florida trial courts’ broad discretion to structure alimony equitably, including through a nonmodifiable lump-sum payment, when supported by the statutory factors and the parties’ financial circumstances.
It also underscores that alimony and child support calculations are interdependent and that judgments must clearly explain how support continues after credits or overpayments are exhausted. Family-law practitioners should ensure that contested parental decision-making issues are actually tried before relief is awarded.