From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pickett v. Pickett

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 3, 1998
709 So. 2d 182 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

Case No. 97-699

Opinion filed April 3, 1998 Rehearing Denied May 14, 1998 JANUARY TERM 1998

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Leonard V. Wood, Judge.

Stephen M. Stone, Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Gary Shader, Maitland, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


The trial court modified the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to, inter alia, reduce the ex-husband's monthly child support obligation from $5,500.00 to $2,378.00. The ex-wife does not assert that some reduction in the ex-husband's child support obligation is unwarranted. Rather, the issues here concern the amount and timing of the reduction. We reverse the modification order in the following respects.

First, the trial court erred in imputing income of $150,000.00 per year to the ex-husband, a radiologist, who was scheduled for sentencing and was in fact sentenced shortly after the modification hearing to 33 months incarceration in federal prison for Medicare fraud. The order of modification contemplates the ex-husband's incarceration. The imputation of income for child support purposes is improper where there is "no showing that the husband had the capability while he was in prison to earn the amount imputed to him." Waugh v. Waugh, 679 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), appeal after remand, 705 So.2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Furthermore, the trial court failed to make a finding of a present ability to pay.Id. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. Given the ex-husband's incarceration, the cause must be remanded for reconsideration under Waugh.

Second, the court erred in failing to make the reduction in child support from $5,500.00 to $2,378.00 retroactive to August 31, 1995, when the ex-husband filed his petition for modification. See Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

We find no abuse of discretion in the award to the ex-wife of lump sum alimony and the denial to her of permanent periodic alimony. These determinations are affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SHARP, W. and ANTOON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pickett v. Pickett

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 3, 1998
709 So. 2d 182 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Pickett v. Pickett

Case Details

Full title:WALLACE JAMES PICKETT, III, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CAROL ANN PICKETT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 3, 1998

Citations

709 So. 2d 182 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Department of Revenue v. Jackson

The petitions were based upon allegations of the father's present inability to satisfy support obligations as…

Mascola v. Lusskin

See § 61.14(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) ("[W]hen a party is required by court order to make any [support,…