FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley D.
Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for
R. Maier and Michael L. Lundy of Older Lunday & Alvarez,
Tampa, for Appellee.
Will appeals from the amended final judgment that dissolves
his marriage to Lisa D. Will. He challenges the award of
alimony to the former wife, the equitable distribution of
marital funds, and the requirement that he a maintain life
insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation. We affirm
the dissolution of marriage, but we reverse the alimony
award, the equitable distribution, and the requirement that
the former husband maintain life insurance, and remand for
the court to reconsider these aspects of the final judgment.
former husband challenges the award of alimony, arguing that
the trial court erred in two respects when computing his
ability to pay alimony. Specifically, he contends that the
trial court erred in computing his income and in failing to
account for his living expenses. Because we agree that the
trial court erred when it determined his ability to pay
without taking his living expenses into account, we reverse
the alimony award. We decline to reach the issue of the
former husband's income because the court necessarily
will have to revisit that issue on remand as well, so that it
may determine the appropriate amount of alimony in light of
the former husband's current circumstances.
calculating the appropriate amount of alimony, the trial
court is obligated to consider the former husband's
living expenses when determining his ability to pay. See
George v. George, 93 So.3d 464, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
(stating that, in determining the former husband's
ability to pay alimony, "the trial court is also
required to consider the former husband's own reasonable
and necessary living expenses"); Nadrich v.
Nadrich, 936 So.2d 15, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing
and remanding for the reconsideration and recalculation of
the support awards and arrearages, taking into account the
former husband's living expenses); Schlafke v.
Schlafke, 755 So.2d 706, 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (noting
that an alimony award should not substantially endanger the
paying spouse's own economic status). Here, the trial
court failed to address the former husband's living
expenses in the amended final judgment. Therefore, we reverse
the award of alimony and remand for the trial court to
reconsider the award taking into account the former
husband's living expenses as well as his current income.
Any award of alimony shall be supported by specific findings
as required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2018).
former husband challenges the award of equitable
distribution, arguing that the trial court erroneously
included money the parties had already spent without a
finding of misconduct. With one exception, we reject his
argument that the trial court included money that was already
spent. That exception is the trial court's inclusion of
$10, 000 the former husband spent on a Grand Canyon rafting
trip. The trial court found the parties gave the trip to
their daughter as a gift in 2015 before the filing of the
petition for dissolution of marriage. The former husband
accompanied the daughter on the trip after the petition was
filed. Other than these findings, the court offers no
explanation for including this $10, 000 in the equitable
a trial court can include a marital asset that was dissipated
during the dissolution proceedings in the equitable
distribution scheme, the trial court must make a specific
finding that a party engaged in intentional misconduct that
resulted in the dissipation of the asset. Levy v.
Levy, 900 So.2d 737, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (stating
that a finding of misconduct is necessary for the assigning
of the dissipated asset to the spending spouse). "The
misconduct necessary to support inclusion of dissipated
assets in an equitable distribution scheme does not include
mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a
manner of which the other spouse disapproves." Roth
v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing
Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998)). Here, the trial court made no such finding-and the
facts it did find would not have supported such a finding.
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution award and
remand for the trial court to reconsider the award without
including the $10, 000 spent on the rafting trip.
former husband argues the trial court erred in requiring that
he maintain a policy of life insurance. Section 61.08(3),
Florida Statutes (2015), authorizes a trial court to require
a party to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy to
secure an alimony obligation. Crosson v. Crosson,
989 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). However, in order to
support such a requirement, the trial court must make
specific findings concerning the party's insurability,
the cost of the proposed insurance, the ability to afford the
insurance, and the special circumstances that ...