2D05-1311 / Searcey v. Searcey

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D05-1311

Case Date: 02/08/2006

Plaintiff: 2D05-1311 / Searcey

Defendant: Searcey

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD SEARCEY, Appellant, v. DEBORAH SEARCEY, Appellee. Opinion filed February 8, 2006. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, Judge. Amy E. Skelton of Amy E. Skelton, P.A., Lake Hamilton, for Appellant. Karol K. Williams of Karol K. Williams, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2D05-1311

WHATLEY, Judge. The Husband appeals the final judgment of dissolution of the parties' marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The parties were married for thirty-two years. The trial court found in the final judgment that the Wife earned a gross annual income of $101,000, and it imputed

a gross annual income of $11,310 to the Husband.1 It was undisputed that the Husband is uninsurable in Florida due to his severe diabetes. The Husband has a high school education. The Wife earned both a bachelor's and a master's degree during the marriage. The trial court awarded the Husband $492 a month in permanent periodic alimony, the exact amount of its calculation of the Wife's monthly surplus. However, this court's calculations reveal that the Wife's monthly surplus exceeds $2400. At oral argument, the Wife's appellate counsel conceded a $1300 error in the Wife's financial affidavit.2 It is incumbent upon counsel and the trial court to ensure the fairness and accuracy of the parties' respective financial affidavits. The primary criteria for a trial court to consider in determining an award of alimony are the needs of the spouse requesting the alimony and the ability of the other spouse to pay. Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In addition, section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2003), sets forth relevant economic factors for trial courts to consider in determining a proper award of alimony and requires courts to make findings of fact with regard to each factor. Although the trial court in this case failed to make the required findings, the parties did not raise that failure as reversible error. Nevertheless, it is clear from the duration of the parties' marriage, the disparity in the parties' incomes, and the fact of the Husband's severe diabetes, see

Download 2D05-1311.pdf