A Florida court has reversed a divorce ruling that determined the income of a husband and wife in a dissolution of marriage case. The decision affects Carole Lynn Waldera and Christopher B. Waldera, who were married in 1999 and have one child. The court found that the trial court made errors in calculating the husband’s income and in imputing income to the wife, which impacted the alimony and child support awarded.
The case, Carole Lynn Waldera v. Christopher B. Waldera, was filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 3D18-1546. The trial court had granted the former wife only $1,083 per month in durational alimony until their child reached adulthood. The court also denied her request for attorney’s fees. The former wife appealed, arguing that the trial court's calculations were not supported by substantial evidence.
The parties had a long history together, with Carole Waldera initially working as a bookkeeper at her husband’s law firm before deciding to stay home to raise their child after the birth. She continued to work part-time until 2011 but has since only worked sporadically. The couple’s marriage began to deteriorate in 2015, leading to the dissolution proceedings.
During the trial, both parties presented testimony, expert witnesses, and financial documentation regarding their incomes and expenses. The trial court determined that Christopher Waldera’s net income was $4,592.46 per month based solely on his income from 2016, which the court deemed to be the most accurate representation. The court also imputed an income of $2,166 per month to Carole Waldera based on her potential earning capacity.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The Court accepts the Husband’s analysis and numbers as to his income." However, the appellate court found that relying solely on the 2016 income was inappropriate, as it did not reflect the husband’s historical earnings. The court noted that the husband’s income had fluctuated significantly in previous years, with annual incomes ranging from $97,021 to $227,748 between 2009 and 2016.
The appellate court emphasized that a trial court’s determination of income must be based on competent and substantial evidence. It pointed out that the trial court failed to consider the husband’s historical earnings, which could indicate his ability to earn more than what was determined. The court stated, "the trial court necessarily abused its discretion in making a contrary finding."
Furthermore, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in imputing income to Carole Waldera. The court explained that to impute income, there must be evidence that the individual is deliberately refusing to work at a higher capacity. The trial court did not provide sufficient evidence to support its finding that the former wife was voluntarily underemployed.
Carole Waldera testified that she was limited in her ability to work due to her full-time commitment to homeschooling their child. The court noted that the former husband’s expert did not meet with the former wife to evaluate her skills or work history, which undermined the credibility of the imputed income calculation.
In its conclusion, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new determination of the husband’s income and the former wife’s imputed income. The court stated that the lower court could receive new evidence regarding both incomes on remand.
This ruling highlights the importance of accurately assessing income in divorce cases, particularly when determining alimony and child support. The decision may have significant implications for both parties as they navigate their financial responsibilities following the dissolution of their marriage.
As for what’s next, the trial court will need to reassess the income calculations based on the appellate court’s findings. This could involve gathering new evidence regarding the husband’s earnings and the wife’s employment potential. The case may also be subject to further appeals depending on the outcomes of the remand proceedings.