BRENDA FAYE ALIZZI v. JOSEPH BRADFORD ALIZZI
Not provided in text (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining temporary spousal support and attorney's fees in a divorce, a court must base its findings on the requesting spouse's actual, documented financial needs and available liquid assets, not on anticipated future expenses or non-liquid, jointly-titled marital property.
Facts:
- Brenda and Joseph Alizzi were married for twenty-three years and separated when they were in their late sixties.
- Before their separation, Brenda and Joseph owned a successful restaurant and lived in an expensive home.
- Upon separation, Brenda moved into her daughter's three-bedroom home.
- At the time of separation, Brenda's liquid assets consisted of $82,000 in checking accounts and $215,000 in her IRA.
- Over sixteen months, Brenda paid $128,000 in attorney's and forensic accounting fees.
- Brenda withdrew $75,000 from her IRA for her daughter's down payment on a larger four-bedroom house, which also resulted in a $40,911 tax penalty.
- Brenda's liquid assets were reduced to approximately $10,000 in checking accounts and $72,000 in her IRA, and she owed an additional $17,000 in attorney's fees and $6,300 in forensic accounting fees.
- Brenda's only income was $3,424 per month from Social Security and a pension, while her actual expenses (according to her affidavit and the husband's forensic accountant) totaled $6,858 per month.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Alizzi (wife) filed an amended motion for temporary relief in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County.
- The circuit court held a hearing on Brenda Alizzi's amended motion for temporary relief, during which both parties' forensic accountants testified.
- The circuit court entered a written order granting in part and denying in part Brenda Alizzi's amended motion, directing Joseph Alizzi (husband) to pay $1,494.00 in temporary monthly support and wholly denying her request for temporary attorney's fees and costs.
- Brenda Alizzi appealed the circuit court's nonfinal order to the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by awarding temporary monthly support lower than Brenda Alizzi's actual documented expenses and by denying her temporary attorney's fees based on her non-liquid, jointly-titled marital assets?
Opinions:
Majority - Gerber, J.
Yes, the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding temporary monthly support lower than Brenda Alizzi's actual documented expenses and by denying her temporary attorney's fees based on her non-liquid, jointly-titled marital assets. Regarding temporary monthly support, the appellate court agreed with the circuit court that Brenda's requested $10,174 per month, which included $7,000 for anticipated rent for her own furnished apartment, was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because it was based on anticipated, not actual, expenses (citing Ard v. Ard). The court emphasized that the standard of living during the marriage is not a "super-factor" that trumps all others in setting alimony (citing Donoff v. Donoff). However, the appellate court found that the circuit court's award of only $1,494 was not supported by the evidence. Based on the husband's own forensic accountant's testimony and Brenda's financial affidavit, her actual expenses totaled $6,858 per month, and her income was $3,424 per month. Given the husband's admitted ability to pay, the circuit court should have awarded at least $3,434 per month ($6,858 - $3,424). Regarding temporary attorney's fees and costs, the circuit court erred by denying Brenda's request based on her stated net worth of $3.8 million. The appellate court found that this net worth was primarily comprised of the jointly titled marital home (valued at $3.5 million) and other alleged marital assets that were not available to Brenda as sources to pay her attorney's fees and costs because the husband continued to occupy the home. The court reiterated that fees should not be denied based on non-liquid assets that are not practically accessible to the spouse in need (citing Kelly v. Kelly and Hasson v. Hasson) and that financial need for fees depends on available resources (citing Von Baillou v. Von Baillou). The circuit court should have considered only Brenda's available, liquid assets when determining her need for fees.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters for temporary relief awards in Florida divorce proceedings. It establishes that while a court has broad discretion, its decisions on temporary spousal support must be rooted in competent, substantial evidence of actual present need, not aspirational or anticipated future expenses. Crucially, for temporary attorney's fees, the court's analysis of a spouse's 'need' must focus on available liquid assets, explicitly excluding non-liquid, jointly-titled marital property that is not practically accessible to the requesting spouse. This distinction prevents spouses from being unfairly denied necessary temporary relief due to illiquid assets that cannot be readily used to cover immediate litigation costs or living expenses.
