In Florida, alimony is based on net income, not gross income. In Kingsbury v. Kingsbury the Florida Court of Appeal stated that in a divorce proceeding: “The ability to pay alimony should be based on the party’s net income. See Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991,993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that trial court erred by using figures that represented gross income rather than net income); Vega v. Vega, 877 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (noting that former spouse’s argument that the award should be based on gross income rather than net income was incorrect because “[i]n reality, the case law states that net income is the relevant benchmark”) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197,1202 (Fla. 1980);
Lambertini v. Lambertini, 817 So. 2d 942,943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); de Armasv. de Armas, 471 So.2d 185,185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Parhamv. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107,108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).”
Here, the only mention in the final judgment of Mr. Kingsbury’ s income, and thus his ability to pay alimony, was his gross income. This is error. In Vanzant, this court recently reversed and remanded an award of alimony, explaining that the figures used “reflect[ed] the gross income shown on the former husband’s amended financial affidavit, not his net income.” 82 So. 3d at 993 (emphasis in original). Although it appears that Mr. Kingsbury may have had the ability to pay $4,000 per month in alimony, it is impossible to know for certain without some indication of his net income. See McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The trial court did not explain how it arrived at a net income amount of $4500 per month, and based on the record before us, we are compelled to reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider this issue.”).”
To speak with a family law attorney in Palm Beach Gardens, FL, call Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 651-7273.