Background
Debra Sowell Short appealed an amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to Darryl Gene Short. The appeal challenged, among other matters, the amount of durational alimony awarded.
The amended judgment stated that Wife had need and Husband had the ability to pay, made findings under section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes, and calculated the statutory 35-percent ceiling for durational alimony. The parties disputed their expenses.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed all issues except durational alimony. It held that section 61.08(2)(a) required specific factual findings of Wife’s actual need and Husband’s ability to pay, measured by net income after reasonable expenses.
The judgment did not identify either party’s reasonable expenses, quantify Wife’s actual need, or determine Husband’s available net income after reasonable expenses. Findings under section 61.08(3) and the 35-percent cap did not replace those threshold findings. The court reversed the durational-alimony award and remanded for the required findings, without directing a particular amount or requiring acceptance of either party’s claimed expenses. It also denied Wife’s motion for appellate sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- A durational-alimony award requires express findings on actual need and ability to pay.
- Need and ability to pay must account for reasonable expenses and resulting net income.
- The statutory 35-percent cap does not substitute for the threshold findings required by section 61.08(2)(a).
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Florida trial courts must make reviewable, expense-based findings before setting alimony. An appellate court will not resolve disputed expense evidence or infer the necessary findings from the amount awarded.