00-1948 MURRAY V. MURRAY

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2001 » 00-1948 MURRAY V. MURRAY

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 00-1948 MURRAY V. MURRAY

Case Date: 11/21/2001

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001 JOHN MURRAY, Appellant, vs. NANCY SIMON MURRAY, Appellee. Opinion filed November 21, 2001. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maxine Cohen Lando, Judge. Melvyn B. Frumkes; Cynthia L. Greene, for appellant. Lauri Waldman Ross, for appellee. ** ** ** CASE NOS. 3D00-1948 & 3D00-3150 ** LOWER ** TRIBUNAL NO. 98-22766

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FLETCHER and SORONDO, JJ.

SORONDO, J. John Murray appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage with respect to the trial court's permanent alimony award to Nancy Simon Murray, his former wife. Mrs. Murray

cross-appeals the amount of alimony awarded, arguing that the lower court erred in its calculations by failing to include Mr.

Murray's bonuses in the equation and by mistaking his net and gross income. We find no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision to award permanent alimony to Mrs. Murray and affirm.1 We do,

however, agree with Mrs. Murray that the trial judge erred in both the calculation of the award and the denial of attorney's fees and costs. Accordingly, we reverse on the cross-appeal.

In her Final Judgment, the trial judge determined that "[Mr. Murray's] gross monthly income is $16,000." acknowledged in a footnote that Mr. Although the court had received

Murray

additional bonuses at the end of the year, specifically noting that his 1999 bonus was $192,000, we do not find that this additional income was properly considered. In a financial affidavit filed by Mr. Murray in January of 2000, he indicated that his monthly gross income, including his bonus, was $35,833. In reaching a net figure, Mr. Murray

properly subtracted payments for monthly federal income taxes, FICA, Medicare and health insurance payments, a total of

$12,370.

He improperly subtracted $7,000 he was paying in court Using these numbers, Mr. The $16,000 round

ordered alimony payments in this case.

Murray reported a net income of $16,463.

We also find no merit in Mr. Murray's second issue in this appeal. - 2 -

1

figure used by the trial judge represented Mr. Murray's monthly net and not his gross as indicated in the Final Judgment. As

indicated above, the $7,000 he was paying as alimony in the present case should not have been excluded from his net income when calculating his permanent alimony obligations. We

therefore conclude that his net monthly income was $23,463, and remand for a calculation of the necessary upward adjustment in Mrs. Murray's alimony award.2 Mrs. Murray further cross-appeals the lower court's denial of her motion for statutory attorney's fees and costs. "The

award of fees is a matter of determining one party's needs and the other party's ability to pay." Abraham v. Abraham, 753 So. The

2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000);

Download 00-1948 MURRAY V. MURRAY.pdf