MARC A. POVEROMO
v.
STEPHANIE POVEROMO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court may impute income at the current entry-level wage for a profession in which a former spouse is qualified and can obtain immediate employment, even if that amount exceeds what the former spouse has ever historically earned.
[1] A trial court may impute income at the current entry-level wage for a profession in which a former spouse is qualified and can obtain immediate employment, even if that a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While the court imputed an amount of income that is higher than the former wife has ever historically earned, under these circumstances we decline to disturb the trial court's decision to impute an entry-level wage to the former wife in a field in which she is qualified and can obtain immediate employment.”
Court's explanation of what Brennan actually held regarding imputation of income
In a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court found that the former wife could return to her profession as a teacher but imputed only $28,000 in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MARC A. POVEROMO,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-3466 LT. Case No. 2016-DR-3634
STEPHANIE POVEROMO,
Appellee. ________________________________/
Opinion filed January 21, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Luis Fernando Calderon, Judge.
Kenneth C. Gallagher, of Law Office of Kenneth C. Gallagher, LLC, Orlando, for Appellant.
Michael M. Brownlee, and Dayna Maeder, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Marc A. Poveromo (“Former Husband”) appeals a final judgment of dissolution arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it only imputed
2 $28,000 in income to Stephanie Poveromo (“Former Wife”). We agree and reverse as to this issue. We otherwise affirm because the remaining arguments raised by Former Husband were either unpreserved or without merit. Following the receipt of the evidence and presentation of arguments, the trial court concluded in the final judgment that Former Wife could return to her profession as a teacher, but declined to impute the current teacher’s salary of $40,000. In so doing, the trial court reasoned that it was without authority to impute more income than Former Wife had ever earned, citing to Brennan v. Brennan, 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Therefore, the trial court imputed only $28,000—the amount Former Wife made nineteen years ago when she last worked as a teacher. On appeal, Former Husband argues that the trial court misconstrued Brennan. We agree. Brennan does not hold that, under these circumstances, the trial court is without authority to impute income at the current starting salary for a teacher. In fact, Brennan actually approved an order imputing income higher than the former wife in that case had ever earned. See Brennan, 184 So. 3d at 590 (“While the court imputed an amount of income that is higher than the former wife has ever historically earned, under these circumstances we decline to disturb the trial court’s decision to impute an
3 entry-level wage to the former wife in a field in which she is qualified and can obtain immediate employment.”). However, given the evidence at trial and the unique factual findings made in the final judgment, we are unable to determine what amount the trial court would have imputed had it not misconstrued the holding in Brennan. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further consideration on the issue of Former Wife’s imputed income. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.