Kenneth Marra

In this Florida divorce case, the wife appealed the final judgment dissolving her marriage, arguing that the trial court miscalculated the husband's income when setting alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The husband, an insurance agent, had averaged $194,000 in net business earnings, but the trial court reduced this to $109,800 by excluding income from viatical insurance sales (due to uncertain future market) and $42,000 in annual renewal commissions (to avoid double-counting with business valuation for equitable distribution). The appellate court reversed, holding that support awards must be based on current existing circumstances rather than anticipated future changes, and that the excluded income streams were neither legally prohibited nor shown to have ended. On remand, the trial court was directed to recalculate the husband's income using historical figures for viatical sales and renewal commissions when reassessing alimony, child support, and fees.

family law

In Segall v. Segall, the husband appealed a Florida trial court's final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging the unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities, the award of permanent alimony to the wife, the calculation of child support, and the award of attorneys' fees. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the trial court failed to make required statutory findings justifying an unequal distribution, improperly relied on pre-dissolution expenditures rather than evidence of intentional dissipation of assets, did not base alimony or child support on the parties' current financial circumstances or follow statutory guidelines, and prematurely ruled on the dischargeability of fees in bankruptcy. The court emphasized that equitable distribution under section 61.075 requires specific findings on asset identification and valuation, and that support awards must reflect present needs and abilities rather than past income or temporary orders.

family law