Mary Zargari, Wife v. Nick Zargari, Husband

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets and the denial of additional attorney fees in their dissolution proceeding. The court remanded the alimony issue for consideration of the former wife's part-time earnings and reversed the requirement that the former husband maintain life insurance securing alimony because the trial court made no specific supporting findings. The decision was issued per curiam with opinions by Kelsey, J., and concurrences by Rowe and Long, JJ.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing and equitably distributing the marital assets because the distribution was supported by competent substantial evidence and was equitable overall.
2. The former wife's challenge to additional attorney fees was waived because she did not raise it in her motion for rehearing; alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional fees.
3. The trial court should not have imputed full-time American Airlines employment to the former wife under the circumstances at the hearing, but it was required to consider her actual part-time American Airlines earnings when determining her need for alimony.
4. A trial court may require life insurance to secure an alimony obligation, but it must make specific evidentiary findings concerning the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor's ability to pay, special circumstances warranting security, and the relationship between the insurance amount and the obligation secured.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and equitably distributing the marital assets.
2. Whether the former wife's challenge to the attorney-fee ruling was waived because it was not raised in her motion for rehearing and, alternatively, whether the ruling was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether the trial court properly considered the former wife's income and earning capacity in determining her need for alimony.
4. Whether the trial court properly required the former husband to maintain life insurance to secure the alimony award without specific findings regarding insurance availability and cost, ability to pay, special circumstances, and the amount of the obligation secured.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded