Kaminski v. Kaminski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaminski v. Kaminski

637 So. 2d 284, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3718, 1994 WL 140748

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1880

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 637 So. 2d 284 (Kaminski v. Kaminski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaminski v. Kaminski, 637 So. 2d 284, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3718, 1994 WL 140748 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case.

The trial judge ordered appellant to pay more money in alimony than the record reflects his earnings will allow. The judge apparently found that appellant was capable of earning more than he was earning and had intentionally avoided earning enough to provide for appellee. Therefore, the judge imputed some amount of income to the husband in order to provide for the wife’s alimony. Because the trial judge made no specific findings of fact to support any imputation, we reverse the award and remand for a rehearing on this issue. Additionally, the order that “upon husband obtaining full time employment, he shall provide wife with adequate health insurance, unless she has full time employment and is afforded the right to have group health insurance” is too vague, open-ended and incapable of reasonable interpretation as to intent. Without knowing what the judge means by “adequate” and without some determination as to how much appellant can reasonably afford to pay, this requirement is too nebulous to understand or enforce. Upon remand a proper award of alimony and provision for health insurance, if available, should be made after a proper hearing. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case.

The trial judge ordered appellant to pay more money in alimony than the record reflects his earnings will allow. The judge apparently found that appellant was capable of earning more than he was earning and had intentionally avoided earning enough to provide for appellee. Therefore, the judge imputed some amount of income to the husband in order to provide for the wife’s alimony. Because the trial judge made no specific findings of fact to support any imputation, we reverse the award and remand for a rehearing on this issue. Additionally, the order that “upon husband obtaining full time employment, he shall provide wife with adequate health insurance, unless she has full time employment and is afforded the right to have group health insurance” is too vague, open-ended and incapable of reasonable interpretation as to intent. Without knowing what the judge means by “adequate” and without some determination as to how much appellant can reasonably afford to pay, this requirement is too nebulous to understand or enforce. Upon remand a proper award of alimony and provision for health insurance, if available, should be made after a proper hearing. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 284, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3718, 1994 WL 140748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminski-v-kaminski-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack