Recently, a Florida appellate court heard a case involving a husband that made $175,000 per year at the time of the divorce and the wife was awarded $5,000 per month in spousal support after all necessary factors were determined by the court. The husband later was laid off from his job and eventually found a new job that paid $66,000. The husband attempted to modify his alimony payment based on his involuntary change in circumstance. However, the trial court found that he should have saved during the time that he knew he was getting laid off (approximately 16 months) in order to pay for his alimony obligation. Also, the trial court found that the husband was using his savings to pay his living expenses while he looked for a new job and the court found that he also could have used his savings to pay his alimony obligation. The trial court ultimately reduced his alimony to $3,500 per month, which constituted 81% of his net income. The appellate court heard the case and reversed the decision based on prior Florida case precedents.
The appellate court basically found, based on Florida law, that the husband could not pay an amount of support that does not allow him to support himself. This goes to the basic ability for alimony, which is not only a need for alimony, but an ability to pay. Second, the appellate court found that the husband could not be required to incur debt in order to pay alimony. Also, the appellate court found that the husband could not be required to deplete or sell his assets to pay alimony to the wife. Furthermore, they found that the husband did not have an obligation to save money to meet his future alimony obligations.
When a case is reversed by the appellate court, the case is then transferred back to the trial court that originally heard it with direction from the appellate court, which is called a remand.