Conlin v. Conlin (Second DCA, March 1, 2017)

The Second District reversed a permanent alimony award because it found that the trial court erroneously calculated the husband’s ability to pay based on his gross, rather than his net, income.  The Second District inferred this from the fact that the final judgment contained an explicit finding as to the husband’s gross income but no such finding for his net.  Because the record did “not clearly demonstrate that the alimony award was based on the former husband’s net income, the Court reversed for additional findings.

The District Court also reversed and remanded the trial court’s equitable distribution scheme because the trial court failed to make a finding as to whether a certain debt was marital or non-marital.  Rather, it simply ignored the debt in its final judgment.  Thus, the trial court failed to comply with its statutory obligation to identify all assets and liabilities and to characterize them as marital or non-marital before effectuating equitable distribution.