When is a judge not permitted to suspend a father's driver's license?

The Appellate Court stated that a former husband's drivers license can only be suspended if a purge amount is established, and the former husband has the ability to pay the purge amount.  The court stated:

ERROR TO ENTER ORDER AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE AND MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT WITHOUT DETERMINING CONTEMNOR'S PRESENT ABILITY TO PAY AND WITHOUT INCLUDING PURGE PROVISION. 

The trial court, adopting the magistrate's findings, entered an order, in pertinent part, directing the clerk to reduce the delinquency by $154,450, but also finding the former husband delinquent and directing the clerk to process the suspension of his driver's license and motor vehicle registration. The District Court held:

1. "Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615 governs civil contempt proceedings in support matters related to family law cases and limits the use of civil contempt sanctions under the rule to those used to compel compliance with a court order and those use to compensate a movant for losses sustained as a result of a contemnor's willful failure to comply with a court order."

2. "Revocation of a delinquent child support obligor's driver's license and motor vehicle registration is a possible sanction to obtain compliance."

3. "In the instant case, the trial court erred in neglecting to include a purge provision in its contempt order that authorized the immediate revocation of the husband's driver's license and motor vehicle registration. Prior to setting a purge provision, the trial court will need to determine the former husband's present ability to pay such an amount. The findings should be included in the order."

Can a judge order alimony if the Husband has been laid off?

In the case of Purrinos v. Purrinos, 34 So.3d 244 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), the Court said the Husband could be ordered to pay alimony, even though a nominal amount, because he was temporarily unemployed, but he had good job prospects in the future.  The appellate court stated it was:

ERROR TO REFUSE TO AWARD WIFE PERMANENT PERIODIC ALIMONY IN A NOMINAL AMOUNT, WHERE, AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL HEARING, HUSBAND WAS INVOLUNTARILY TEMPORARILY UNEMPLOYED, BUT HAD AN EXPECTATION OF SECURING A POSITION SHORTLY THEREAFTER. 

The parties' only substantial asset was a family home, which was severely under water and was awarded, by agreement, to the Wife. During the marriage, both parties worked, with the Husband earning substantially more than the Wife. At the time of the final hearing, the Husband was involuntarily, temporarily unemployed but had the expectation of securing a position shortly thereafter. The trial court refused to award alimony in any form and the Wife appealed. The District Court held:

1. "Under these circumstances, we agree with the [Wife's] sole contention on appeal: that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by failing to award her alimony in any form."

            2. "In recognition of the desirability of providing for the real likelihood that such an award, although not now appropriate because of the husband's inability to pay, may become so in the future, we remand the case with directions to award her permanent periodic alimony in a nominal amount." 

            If a judge awards a nominal amount of alimony ($1), and the husband later gets a good paying job, alimony could be increased.

Can a judge order retroactive alimony?

In the case of Buoniconti v. Buoniconti, 36 So.3d 154 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the Court found the Husband must pay retroactive alimony because he refused to support his wife during the divorce.

Prior to the dissolution hearing, husband and wife resolved the majority of issues between them. The trial court was asked to consider only the wife's claim for permanent and retroactive alimony and her claim that the liquid marital assets should be distributed unequally due to the husband's dissipation of certain marital assets during the marriage. At the close of the dissolution proceedings, the trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony payable as lump sum as well as retroactive alimony. It also found that the husband had dissipated marital assets, and it charged those dissipated assets to the Husband in its equitable distribution scheme. The husband first contended that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the wife $261,240 in permanent alimony payable as a lump sum. The argument has two components: first, whether the wife was entitled to permanent alimony, payable as a lump sum; and second, whether the amount of the award was supported by evidence. As to the retroactive award, the District Court held:

1. "When one spouse has sufficient income to pay alimony during the pendency of dissolution proceedings but instead decides to provide only nominal support, thus requiring the other spouse to invade marital assets for support, an award of retroactive alimony may be proper." 

2. "However… the amount of retroactive alimony awarded is not supported by the evidence because it does not account for the Wife's use of the Husband's share of certain marital assets to support herself…. The Final Judgment on its face does not account for the Wife's use of the Husband's one-half share of [such] marital funds."

What if my self-employed spouse lies about income?

In the case of Child v. Child, 34 So.3d 159 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), The Court imputed income to the self- employed Husband.  The appellate court agreed with the trial court that income should have been imputed to the Husband, but disagreed with the exact amount.

The Husband was a self-employed marine electronic technician with a reported gross monthly income of $1,759. The evidence showed that during the pendency of the divorce, the Husband paid the mortgage and expenses for the wife and children; he also paid credit card bills and children's expenses. The trial court found that husband's income was greater than he reported and imputed an additional $3,000 in monthly income to him. The District Court held:

1. "It is within the trial court's discretion to impute income to a spouse in order to determine the support awards. In addition, Florida case law has long recognized that self-employed spouses, in contrast to salaried employees, have the ability to control and regulate their income. Their testimony, tax returns, and business records accordingly may not reflect their true earnings, earning capability, and net worth."

2. "Here, the husband is a self-employed marine electronic technician, reporting a gross monthly income of $1759. He has been in this business for the past twenty years and operates his business with minimal cost at a property owned by his sister. He does not advertise his services and obtains customers based on referrals…. The husband does not have separate bank accounts or credit card accounts for his personal and business expenses…. The credit card bills varied from approximately $3000 to $15,000 a month. The husband submitted tax returns showing a reported range of gross income from $13,004 to $27,772."

3. "This record justifies the trial court's conclusion that the husband's financial documents and testimony did not demonstrate the accuracy of his reported income and that the negative cash flow, which the trial court concluded was not satisfactorily explained, supports a ruling that the husband's income was greater than he reported."

4. "We find merit, however, in the husband's argument that the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's imputation of the specific amount of an additional $3,000 in monthly income to the husband. At trial, the court did not explain how it arrived at this figure, and the final judgment and the record do not disclose any basis for finding that the husband actually earned or is capable of earning $3000 in additional income each month."