Cissel v. Cissel, 4D09-3029 & 4D10-1324
\nJune 22, 2011<\/p>\n
The Fourth District wrote to address an appeal of an alimony award and child support.\u00a0 The court below found the former husband, appellant, to have a gross monthly income of $18,109.\u00a0 The figure was based on his average earnings during the preceding fourteen months of trial.\u00a0 The appellant argued that this error.\u00a0 The Fourth District held that although it was acceptable to use this average, it was error to base any support from this figure in this case.\u00a0 Citing \u00a761.08(2)(i), Fla. Stat. (requiring consideration of all sources of income available to either party), the Fourth District found the trial court to have failed to deduct the husband\u2019s undisputed business expenses.
\nThe Fourth District also found error in the trial court\u2019s award of alimony to former wife.\u00a0 The trial court had only made findings as to the length of the marriage and the $20,000 per month standard of living that exceeded the parties\u2019 incomes.\u00a0 On appeal, the Fourth District again referred to \u00a761.08(1), Fla. Stat. (requiring findings of facts relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award of alimony).\u00a0 Additionally, the court noted that the marital standard of living is not a useful guide in awarding alimony where the marital lifestyle costs more than the parties\u2019 earnings.\u00a0 Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So.2d 620, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).\u00a0 The Fourth District reversed and remanded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cissel v. Cissel, 4D09-3029 & 4D10-1324 June 22, 2011 The Fourth District wrote to address an appeal of an alimony award and child support.\u00a0 The court below found the former husband, appellant, to have a gross monthly income of $18,109.\u00a0 The figure was based on his average earnings during the preceding fourteen months of trial.\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1811,1806],"tags":[1990,1858,1991,1992,1993,1859,1931,1994,1932,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,1937,1945,2002,1912,2003],"class_list":["post-2214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4th-dca-rulings","category-family","tag-alimony","tag-appeal","tag-appellant","tag-award","tag-business-expenses","tag-child-support","tag-court","tag-earnings","tag-fourth-dca","tag-fourth-district","tag-husband","tag-income","tag-marital-lifestyle","tag-marriage","tag-monthly-income","tag-nichols-v-nichols","tag-remanded","tag-reversed","tag-standard-of-living","tag-trial-court","tag-wife"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}