Winnier v. Winnier

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winnier v. Winnier

163 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7957, 2015 WL 3395766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 2015

Docket2D14-2754

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 So. 3d 1279 (Winnier v. Winnier) 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

Winnier v. Winnier, 163 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7957, 2015 WL 3395766 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Albert Joseph Winnier appeals the supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. That judgment granted in part and denied in part his supplemental petition for modification of alimony and installment payments to his former wife, Carol Ann Winnier. The trial court erred in failing to impute income to the former wife for earnings that could reasonably be projected based on her liquid assets. Without explanation, the trial court imputed such income to the former husband. Consequently, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the alimony amount.

The trial court imputed to the former husband income of $1400 per month based on his CPA’s testimony that this would be a reasonable return on investment of the former husband’s retirement accounts. The trial court did not impute to the former wife income of $528 per month that the financial expert testified she could earn on her invested liquid assets. This was error. See Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding court must impute income reasonably projected for earnings on liquid assets awarded in property division.).

The former wife concedes that the trial court erred. However, she argues that the error is harmless because the former husband has the financial resources to pay the modified alimony. We disagree. Our record does not allow us to conclude that the result would be the same even without the error. Thus, we reverse and remand for recalculation of alimony in light of this item of imputed income. We affirm on all other issues without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ„ Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Albert Joseph Winnier appeals the supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. That judgment granted in part and denied in part his supplemental petition for modification of alimony and installment payments to his former wife, Carol Ann Winnier. The trial court erred in failing to impute income to the former wife for earnings that could reasonably be projected based on her liquid assets. Without explanation, the trial court imputed such income to the former husband. Consequently, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the alimony amount.

The trial court imputed to the former husband income of $1400 per month based on his CPA’s testimony that this would be a reasonable return on investment of the former husband’s retirement accounts. The trial court did not impute to the former wife income of $528 per month that the financial expert testified she could earn on her invested liquid assets. This was error. See Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding court must impute income reasonably projected for earnings on liquid assets awarded in property division.).

The former wife concedes that the trial court erred. However, she argues that the error is harmless because the former husband has the financial resources to pay the modified alimony. We disagree. Our record does not allow us to conclude that the result would be the same even without the error. Thus, we reverse and remand for recalculation of alimony in light of this item of imputed income. We affirm on all other issues without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 1279, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7957, 2015 WL 3395766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winnier-v-winnier-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack