Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michelle Bork v. Jeff D. Bork, 15-4384 (2016)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 15-4384 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MICHELLE BORK, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D15-4384 JEFF D. BORK, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed September 6, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David Rimmer, Judge. Ross A. Keene, Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. Brian P. North, Kenny Leigh & Associates, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this a
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MICHELLE BORK, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D15-4384 JEFF D. BORK, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed September 6, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David Rimmer, Judge. Ross A. Keene, Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. Brian P. North, Kenny Leigh & Associates, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this appeal, the former wife, Michelle Bork, appeals from the trial court’s rulings on the duration and amount of alimony and on attorney’s fees in the final judgment dissolving her fourteen-year marriage with the former husband, Jeff Bork. We affirm on all issues except the amount of the alimony award. As argued by the former wife, the face of the record reflects a clear error in the financial information utilized by the trial court in setting the alimony amount. The trial court found that the former husband’s net income was $7,052.88 based on his June 23, 2015, amended Financial Affidavit. However, this net amount is the result of a deduction of the temporary alimony award to the former wife in the amount of $3,500. Since the temporary alimony award was in place only until the final hearing, the former husband’s net monthly income should have been adjusted and increased by the temporary award amount before calculating the former wife’s alimony amount. As a result, the trial court’s finding concerning the former husband’s net monthly income is not supported and requires reversal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction and further consideration as to the appropriate alimony amount to be awarded to the former wife. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED AND REMANDED in part. RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer