GIEGOLD v. GIEGOLD (2024)

In this appeal of a final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, Appellant Scott Giegold (“Former Husband”) challenges the trial court's award of permanent and retroactive alimony to Appellee Virginia Giegold (“Former Wife”). Former Husband argues that the trial court erred by, among other things ¹ : (1) failing to make specific findings regarding the parties’ net incomes in support of the permanent alimony award; (2) basing the permanent alimony award on the parties’ gross incomes rather on the parties’ net incomes; and (3) awarding retroactive alimony to Former Wife without making specific findings regarding Former Wife's need for alimony and Former Husband's ability to pay alimony during the period for which retroactive alimony was awarded. Former Husband is correct on each of these arguments. See Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1211-13 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Gayer v. Nicita, 368 So. 3d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023); Goodman v. Goodman, 363 So. 3d 220, 224 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).

We reverse the award of permanent and retroactive alimony and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this court's opinions in Reese, Gayer and Goodman.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Since the errors addressed herein are sufficient to necessitate reversal of the awards of retroactive and permanent alimony, we do not address Former Husband's additional arguments. On remand, Former Husband may address these arguments to the trial court.

PER CURIAM.

TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.