Florida requires findings for durational alimony: before awarding it, a trial court must make specific factual findings of actual need and ability to pay, and a calculation of the statutory ceiling does not replace them. The First District Court of Appeal held that on October 28, 2026, in Short v. Short, No. 1D2025-0918, and reversed a durational alimony award from Holmes County. The opinion is per curiam. Judges Rowe, Winokur and Neff concurred.
What the court reviewed
The wife appealed an amended final judgment dissolving the marriage. The court wrote only about the findings behind the amount of durational alimony and affirmed all other issues “without discussion.”
The rule
The court said section 61.08(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2025), requires specific factual findings of actual need and ability to pay before alimony is awarded. Need and ability are measured using net incomes after reasonable expenses. Section 61.08(8)(c) caps durational alimony at the lesser of the recipient’s reasonable need or thirty-five percent of the difference in the parties’ net incomes.
Findings for durational alimony: why the judgment fell short
The amended judgment stated that the wife has need and the husband has the ability to pay, made findings under section 61.08(3), and calculated the thirty-five-percent ceiling. The court held those findings and the ceiling “do not substitute” for the threshold determinations in subsection (2)(a). The judgment did not identify either party’s reasonable expenses, quantify the wife’s actual need, or determine the husband’s available net income after reasonable expenses. The court also declined to infer a need finding from the award and the wife’s imputed income.
Why it did not decide the amount itself
The parties disputed the expenses. The court said it could not choose the accepted expenses or supply the findings the statute assigns to the trial court.
The disposition
The court reversed the durational alimony award and remanded for the trial court to make the findings section 61.08(2)(a) requires, affirmed in all other respects, and denied the wife’s pending motion for appellate sanctions.
What this does and does not mean
The remand is limited. The court said it did not direct a particular amount and did not require the trial court to accept either party’s claimed expenses. The opinion gives no figures for incomes, expenses or the length of the marriage, so it does not show what the award was or what it should be on remand. The unaddressed issues were affirmed without explanation, so the opinion says nothing about them. The opinion is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 is decided.
Related decisions: Does Reassignment to a Different Division Moot a Florida Motion to Disqualify the Judge? Yes, the Third DCA Says, Dismissing a Prohibition Petition Can a Court Make a Former Wife Sign a Quitclaim Deed After the Refinancing Deadline Passed? Not on This Judgment, the Sixth DCA Held
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Short v. Short, No. 1D2025-0918 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 28, 2026) (per curiam). This article is general information, not legal advice.