Appeals Court Addresses Whether Former Wife Was Underemployed For The Purposes Of Calculating Alimony

When calculating support, the courts are asked to determine a monthly figure that is based on the needs of the receiving party and the paying party’s ability to pay. In the case of Edmonds v. Edmonds, the former husband argued that his wife was underemployed and should have income imputed to her for the purpose of calculating alimony. In other words, he argued that his wife could earn more money if she was fully employed, but she wasn’t, which is why her expenses and income were out of whack.

Background of the case 

In this case, the wife requested durational alimony. The husband filed a petition to the court to impute income to the former wife beyond her actual earnings and recommended awarding the former wife durational alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month for five years. Both parties filed exceptions.

The trial judge held a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions and entered an order which (1) upheld the magistrate’s finding that the former wife was not underemployed; (2) found that the initial report did not provide support in the record for the magistrate’s award of durational alimony in the amount of $1,500 per month; and (3) remanded the case back to the magistrate for a supplemental order demonstrating the factual basis and/or mathematical calculations supported by evidence from the trial.

On remand, the magistrate made findings that showed that the former wife’s income was $1,971 per month and that her necessary expenses were $3,461.32 per month. Hence, her need for alimony was $1,490.32 per month. Both parties again filed timely exceptions. The trial court entered a new order that the former husband should pay $3,929.00 per month for five years rather than the $1,500 per month recommended by the magistrate. However, the court did not hold a hearing regarding the parties’ exceptions.

The husband appealed. He argued that the trial court erred when it found that the former wife was not underemployed. The appeals court found no reason to agree with the husband and upheld the decision of the trial court here. However, the appeals court did find that the trial court erred when it failed to conduct a hearing on the parties’ exceptions.

Thus, when one party timely files exceptions to a magistrate’s report, it is a reversible error for a trial court to fail to conduct a hearing on the exceptions before entering an order. Because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the parties’ respective exceptions, the appeals court saw fit to overturn the supplemental order and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on the parties’ exceptions.

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC represents the interests of Tampa residents who are pursuing a divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin addressing key matters such as equitable distribution of the marital estate, alimony, child custody, and child support.

Source:

casetext.com/case/edmonds-v-edmonds-103?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202022&jxs=fl&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&tab=keyword