GINA K. PERSAUD, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
DHANIRAM DANNY PERSAUD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Richard A.
A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
R. Schaffer of James R. Schaffer, P.A., Tampa, for
ORDER OF THE COURT:
motion for rehearing is granted. The prior opinion dated
February 9, 2018, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is
issued in its place.
HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
Persaud (the Wife) appeals the amended final judgment of
dissolution of marriage from Dhaniram Persaud (the Husband).
On appeal, the Wife argues that the trial court erred by: (1)
failing to award her adequate retroactive alimony; (2)not
considering the tax consequences of her durational alimony
award; and (3)erroneously calculating her retroactive child
support obligation. On cross-appeal, the Husband contends
that the trial court erred by awarding the Wife any alimony
at all. We find merit in all three arguments raised by the
Wife, and we therefore reverse those aspects of the amended
final judgment and remand for further proceedings. In all
other respects, we affirm.
Wife first argues that the trial court erred by failing to
award her retroactive alimony in accordance with her
demonstrated need as found by the trial court. This argument
has merit and requires us to remand for further proceedings.
fourteen-year marriage, the Husband filed for dissolution on
October 14, 2010. At that time, the Husband owned and ran a
successful armored car business while the Wife was
essentially a stay-at-home mother.
2011, the parties stipulated to the entry of an order
granting temporary relief to the Wife, under which the
Husband agreed to pay the Wife $1200 per month in temporary
support in addition to paying the "normal and customary
marital expenses of the parties, including without
limitation, household mortgage payments, electric, telephone,
cable, and auto insurance." There is no dispute that the
"normal and customary expenses of the parties"
totaled approximately $11, 781 per month. Hence, the Husband
agreed to pay $12, 981 per month in temporary support, with
$1200 being paid directly to the Wife and the remainder being
paid to others on her behalf. When the marital home was sold
in July 2013, a subsequent order was entered that relieved
the Husband of his obligation to pay the "normal and
customary marital expenses" but increased the direct
support payment to the Wife to $3500 per month.
case progressed, the parties reached agreement on equitable
distribution, leaving only the issues of alimony, child
support, and attorney's fees for the trial court's
determination. In paragraph 4.8 of the findings of fact in
the amended final judgment, the court found that the
"Wife required $2, 357.00 net after taxes after
Husband paid the mortgage, utilities and other customary
expenses required by the July 8, 2011, Order Granting
Temporary Relief." (Emphasis added.) Given the
parties' earlier agreement that the mortgage, utilities,
and other customary expenses totaled ...