Imputing Income
from Ass ets
By K. Dean Kantaras and Jennifer H. Cavill
I n Florida, alimony is based upon the
requestor’s need and the payor’s
ability to pay. When determining
the type and amount of a support
payment, the Court is required to consider
a number of factors as set out in §61.08,
Florida Statutes, including “all sources of
income available to either party, including
income available to either party through
investments of any asset held by that
party…any other factor necessary to do
equity and justice between the parties.”
Furthermore, Florida case law holds that
“a court is required to impute income for
earnings that can reasonably be projected
based on liquid assets awarded as part
of the property division.” Buoniconti v.
Buoniconti, 36 So. 3d 154, 160-61 (Fla. 2nd
DCA 2010). However, if the Court is going
to consider imputing income to a party
from the party’s projected earnings on
liquid assets, such as retirement accounts
for example, the Court must also consider
the other party’s projected earnings on
liquid assets, if any, to determine whether
imputation of income is appropriate there
as well. See Winnier v. Winnier, 163 So.3d
1279 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2015). Failure to impute
income to an alimony recipient that could
reasonably be projected on a party’s liquid
assets may result in the alimony having a
savings component which is not permitted
under Florida law. See Rosecan v. Springer,
985 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
While case law is abundantly clear
that income may be imputed from liquid
assets, the issue of imputing income from
non-liquid is less common. Consider the
former marital home, for example. This
is a non-liquid asset that one party may
receive in equitable distribution and
occupy after the divorce is finalized.
Courts generally will not impute income
that could be generated from the rental
142 TAMPA BAY MAGAZINE
LAARWT
K. Dean Kantaras, Esq.
| SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2016
on the former husband’s real estate and
financial assets, the trial court imputed
a rate of return at 3% per annum. Based
upon this imputed income and the former
husband’s social security disability
benefits income, the trial court found
that the former husband did not have a
need for permanent periodic alimony,
and his request was denied. The 4th DCA
upheld this decision on appeal, noting that
the decision did not require the former
husband to liquidate any tangible personal
property or invade the principal of his
assets. The 4th DCA went on further to
indicate that the former husband could
sell his real estate holdings and reinvest
the assets at a reasonable rate of return
without having to invade principal. 9
EDITOR’S NOTE: K. Dean Kantaras has
been licensed to practice law in Florida for over
nineteen years. Mr. Kantaras is the managing
partner of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., a firm
handling cases in family law and immigration.
Mr. Kantaras is board certified in marital and
family law by the Florida Bar, a distinction
held by less than one percent of all attorneys
licensed to practice in Florida. He is “A” rated
by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest possible
rating. He is a member of the Supreme Court
of the United States, the United States Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Middle
District, The Florida Bar, and the Clearwater
Bar Association. His offices are located at 3531
Alternate 19, Palm Harbor, 34683, (727) 781-
0000 and 1930 East Bay Drive, Largo, 33771,
(727) 544-0000. www.Kantaraslaw.com.
Jennifer Cavill, Esq. is an Associate Attorney
at the firm. She is a member of the Florida
Bar, the United States District Court-Middle
District of Florida, Clearwater Bar and St.
Petersburg Bar Associations and Canakaris
Inn of Court.
of the former marital home if the home
is occupied by a former spouse after
divorce. But what about real estate that
is not occupied after the divorce – can
income be imputed for these non-liquid
assets? This issue was recently discussed
in the 4th District Court of Appeal in
Sherlock v. Sherlock, 4D15-365, 2016 WL
3745486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
In Sherlock, the former husband
requested permanent periodic alimony
during the dissolution of this 17-year
marriage. The former husband’s assets
included, among other things, retirement
and investment assets, a Deerfield Beach
house, a North Carolina cabin, four lots
in North Carolina, “US – 1 Lot”, and the
former husband’s current residence. The
trial court did not impute income to the
former husband for his current home, but
did impute income to the former husband
for his other real estate and financial assets.
Since there was no evidence presented
as to the reasonable projected income
/www.Kantaraslaw.com