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."