Sakinah Tarajee Jackson, Former Wife, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
Barry Christopher Jackson, Former Husband, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. John Jay
Holman, Shalimar, and Clark H. Henderson of Henderson Law
Firm, P.A., Shalimar, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Collins Petermann and Stephanie N. Greaves of Tonya C.
Petermann, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for
former wife raises six issues on appeal from the trial
court's final order on her petition for dissolution of
marriage, her petition for relocation with the minor
children, and the former husband's petition for
dissolution of marriage. The former husband filed a
cross-appeal and raises four issues. We find no error in the
trial court's rulings on time-sharing, parental
responsibility, and denying the former wife's petition
for relocation. Because we find that the trial court's
determination of the former wife's income is not
supported by competent, substantial evidence, we are
compelled to reverse the trial court's rulings with
regards to child support, alimony, attorney's fees and
costs, and the determination that the award of child support
should not be secured by life insurance.
calculating the former wife's monthly income, the trial
court included $3750 per month in gross salary, in addition
to the income the former wife received from retirement and
disability. But at the time of the hearing, the former wife
was unemployed, and the only record support for the $3750
salary amount is a worksheet imputing to the former wife an
annual income of $40, 000. The inclusion of the $3750 amount
in the calculation of the former wife's income is
confounding because the trial court found that the former
wife was not underemployed and that no income should be
imputed. Because an error in calculating the former
wife's income may have contributed to the denial of the
former wife's requests for alimony and attorney's
fees and costs, we reverse and remand for the trial court to
reconsider those issues. We affirm all other issues raised by
the former wife in her appeal.
cross-appeal, the former husband also challenges the trial
court's findings regarding the former wife's income,
arguing that the trial court erred by not imputing income to
the former wife. In one paragraph of the final judgment, the
court found that the former wife was not voluntarily
unemployed and declined to impute income to her. But later,
when the trial court concluded that the former wife did not
need alimony, the court found that the former wife was
voluntarily unemployed. Based on these inconsistent findings
on whether the wife was voluntarily unemployed, coupled with
the inclusion of the $3750 gross salary amount in the
calculation of the former wife's monthly income, it is
unclear whether the court intended to impute income to the
former wife. Thus, we reverse for the trial court to
determine whether the former wife was voluntarily unemployed
and to make the appropriate findings to support any
imputation of income.
former husband also argues that the trial court erred when it
computed child support by not including the former wife's
non-taxed disability and reemployment assistance payments as
part of her income. Because the Legislature has required
trial courts to consider disability and reemployment
assistance payments as part of a party's income for child
support, the trial court erred when it failed to include
those payments as part of the former wife's income.
See § 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018).
cross-appeal, the former husband also argues that the trial
court erred when it failed to order the former wife to repay
him for the extra child support he paid. Because the trial
court failed to address this issue in its final judgment, we
remand this issue back to the trial court for it to consider
whether the recoupment of child support would be equitable.
See Wooten v. Wooten, 510 So.2d 1033, 1034-35 (Fla.
2d DCA 1987) (remanding the case back to the trial court to
determine if the recoupment of overpayment in child support
would be equitable).
last issue, the former husband argues that the trial court
erred when it determined that the former wife should not have
to secure her child support obligation with a life insurance
policy. Because we are reversing the trial court's award
of child support, we are compelled to remand this issue to
the trial court for it to consider whether there are special
circumstances that require the former wife to secure the
award of child support.
in part, Reversed in ...