The January 8, 2025 decision in Smith v. Chevillet from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal delivers a clear message to trial courts and litigants: rehabilitative alimony cannot be built on assumptions, informal end-of-trial discussions, or vague hopes about retraining. It must rest on competent substantial evidence, it must include a specific rehabilitative plan, and it must fit within Florida’s statutory framework for alimony and child support. For anyone navigating a contested dissolution, a Tampa divorce lawyer will often focus on these exact pressure points because they frequently drive appellate reversals.
This case involved two high-earning medical professionals and a relocation that changed the parties’ respective career trajectories. It also involved a trial court that attempted to craft “family support” and rehabilitative alimony using a late-trial discussion and then failed to apply the required child support accounting for spousal support. Those errors triggered a reversal and a remand.
If you are working through support issues in a divorce, a Tampa divorce lawyer can use this opinion to frame arguments about what must be proven, what must be in writing, and what must be included in the record.
The Big Picture: Why This Case Matters for Florida Divorce Litigation
Although Smith v. Chevillet arose in the Fourth District, the legal concepts apply statewide. Courts must follow section 61.08 when awarding alimony and section 61.30 when calculating child support. When trial courts shortcut those requirements, appellate courts tend to intervene.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, the practical significance is simple. A party seeking rehabilitative alimony must come to court with a detailed plan supported by evidence. A party opposing it must test whether the plan is real, defined, and feasible. And both sides must ensure spousal support payments are properly treated in the child support framework.
The Facts: Two Physicians, One Child, and a Relocation
The parties married in 2007 and have one minor child. The former husband is a neurosurgeon. The former wife is an orthopedic surgeon with a pediatric orthopedic focus. From 2010 to 2017, they lived in Brevard County. During that time, the former wife earned a peak salary of roughly $350,000 in 2016.
In 2017, the family relocated to Palm Beach County for the former husband’s career opportunities. After the move, the former husband’s income increased to over $900,000. The former wife’s earnings dropped sharply. She reported approximately $90,000 in income for 2018 and testified that her pediatric orthopedic specialty made it difficult to secure suitable employment in the new market.
In 2020, the former husband filed for dissolution of marriage. At trial, the former wife testified she earned only $8 per month and owed her employer $18,000 in 2022. The trial court did not find that testimony credible and described it as “inconceivable.” Even so, the court accepted that the move negatively affected the former wife’s career prospects and that some form of rehabilitative support could be appropriate.
A Tampa divorce lawyer often sees this pattern. A relocation can create a real earning disruption for one spouse, especially when the spouse’s practice area is narrow. But the legal question is not whether the disruption feels unfair. The question is whether the evidence supports the statutory remedy requested.
What the Trial Court Did: Two Types of “Support”
The trial court addressed support in two separate ways.
1) “Family Support” Based on an End-of-Trial Discussion
Near the end of trial, there was an “open discussion” between the court and counsel. In response, the former husband’s counsel agreed the former husband would pay many of the former wife’s living and household expenses for four years. These included:
- Mortgage, insurance, and property taxes
- Medical and dental insurance for the former wife
- Pet grooming
- The child’s extracurriculars, field trips, summer camp, and graduation expenses
- Automobile expenses and other costs
The total exceeded $8,000 per month. The court characterized these payments as spousal support or family support and stated they would cease upon the child’s high school graduation.
2) Rehabilitative Alimony Under Section 61.08
Separately, the trial court analyzed rehabilitative alimony under section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2023). The court found the former wife had a need for rehabilitative alimony and that she planned to retrain in joint arthroplasty to raise her income to within 80 percent of her prior earnings. The court awarded:
- $3,300 for a training course registration fee
- $2,000 per month for 36 months in rehabilitative alimony
When you add the “family support” to the rehabilitative award, the trial court’s approach imposed substantial monthly obligations on top of the equitable distribution scheme.
A Tampa divorce lawyer reading this opinion will immediately focus on how the trial court grounded these numbers, what evidence supported them, and whether the statutory findings and statutory accounting requirements were met.
The Appeal: Four Issues the Former Husband Raised
The former husband appealed both the final judgment and the denial of his motion for rehearing. He argued:
- The court awarded alimony without making the required findings of fact.
- The rehabilitative alimony award lacked competent substantial evidence and lacked a sufficient rehabilitative plan.
- The court failed to credit the former husband’s payments as income to the former wife and as a reduction of his income for child support purposes.
- The court erred in denying rehearing.
The Fourth District reversed in part and affirmed in part. The most important holdings involve rehabilitative alimony, the supposed “agreement” created during trial, and the child support income calculations.
Issue One: Required Findings and Preservation Problems
Florida law requires specific findings in alimony awards. Trial courts must address the statutory factors and explain need and ability to pay, along with other relevant considerations. The former husband argued the court failed to make the required findings.
However, the appellate court held this issue was not preserved because the former husband did not raise it in his motion for rehearing. That procedural outcome is a warning for practitioners and parties. Even strong legal issues can be lost if they are not properly preserved in post-trial motions.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will treat preservation as a case strategy, not an afterthought. If the final judgment lacks required findings, that issue must be flagged immediately and properly.
Issue Two: Rehabilitative Alimony Must Have Evidence and a Defined Plan
This is the core of the opinion. The appellate court reversed the rehabilitative alimony award because it was not supported by competent substantial evidence and because the former wife failed to provide a “specific and defined rehabilitative plan.”
What Florida Law Requires
Rehabilitative alimony is intended to help a spouse become self-supporting through either:
- Redevelopment of previous skills or credentials, or
- Education, training, or work experience necessary to develop appropriate employment skills or credentials
Florida law also requires a specific rehabilitative plan. The plan must address:
- The objective of rehabilitation
- The costs of the plan
- The projected period necessary for completion
In other words, rehabilitative alimony is not meant to function as a flexible monthly subsidy while someone figures out next steps. It is meant to fund a defined pathway.
What the Record Showed Here
The appellate court reviewed the transcript and noted that the record reflected only a discussion between the judge and counsel at the end of trial. That was not competent substantial evidence. The former wife did not present a sufficiently detailed plan establishing what exactly she would do, how long it would take, how it would work, and what the total cost would be.
Because the rehabilitative alimony award lacked the required evidentiary foundation and lacked the required plan, the Fourth District reversed it and remanded for further proceedings.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can draw a direct line from this holding to day-to-day litigation. If rehabilitative alimony is requested, the requesting spouse should bring a full plan with dates, costs, program details, and testimony explaining why the plan is reasonable. If the plan is vague, the opposing spouse should build a record showing that the plan does not meet the statutory standard.
Issue Three: A Trial Discussion Is Not an Enforceable Support Agreement Without Clear Assent
The appellate court next tackled the trial court’s reliance on the end-of-trial discussion to impose the $8,000+ monthly obligation. The former wife argued the former husband agreed to these payments. The former husband argued there was no binding agreement.
Florida law recognizes that if parties enter into a valid agreement on the record, specific statutory findings may not be required. But that exception only applies when there is clear and unequivocal assent from both parties on the record.
Here, the appellate court held there was no clear assent.
- The former husband’s counsel discussed paying the mortgage for four years and then quitclaiming the deed.
- But neither party clearly accepted a complete support agreement on the record.
- The former wife’s counsel raised concerns about the feasibility of refinancing and the lack of evidence about the former wife’s ability to qualify for a mortgage later.
- The details of what would happen at the end of the four years were not clearly defined.
Without mutual assent and without clear terms, the appellate court held the statutory findings requirements were not excused. The spousal support award was reversed, and the case was remanded for a determination based on evidence, not on an informal discussion.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, this is a powerful reminder. If the parties are actually reaching an agreement in court, the agreement should be placed clearly on the record with both parties stating assent. If that does not happen, the court must follow the statute and base its rulings on evidence and findings.
Issue Four: Spousal Support Must Be Counted Correctly in Child Support Calculations
The appellate court also reversed the child support determination because the trial court failed to properly account for spousal support in calculating income.
The Statutory Framework
Section 61.30 governs child support. Under the statute:
- Spousal support received must be included in the recipient’s gross income.
- Spousal support paid pursuant to a court order must be deducted from the payor’s gross income when calculating net income.
That statutory accounting is not optional.
What the Trial Court Did Wrong
The trial court ordered the former husband to pay over $8,000 per month in expenses and expressly characterized the payments as spousal support. But when calculating child support, the court only credited the former wife with $2,000 per month in net income, reflecting only the rehabilitative alimony. The court also failed to deduct the $8,000+ obligation from the former husband’s income.
Those omissions violated the statute. The appellate court reversed and remanded for recalculation of incomes and an appropriate child support award.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will recognize how frequently this issue arises when support is structured as payment of expenses rather than a single monthly transfer. If a court calls it spousal support, it needs to be treated as spousal support in the child support worksheet framework.
What Happens on Remand
The Fourth District reversed in part and remanded. That means the trial court must revisit:
- The rehabilitative alimony issue with an evidentiary record and a defined plan if one is sought
- The spousal support obligation that was imposed based on an informal discussion
- The child support calculation after properly accounting for spousal support received and paid
The trial court retains discretion, but only within the boundaries set by the statutes and the evidentiary record.
For anyone litigating support, a Tampa divorce lawyer can use this case to push for precision and to challenge awards that are not adequately supported.
Practical Takeaways for Florida Divorce Cases
If You Are Seeking Rehabilitative Alimony
You should present a plan that includes:
- The specific program or retraining path
- Admission or enrollment documentation if available
- A clear timeline for completion
- A full breakdown of costs, including tuition, registration, travel, and testing fees
- Evidence linking the plan to improved employability and projected income
Courts are more likely to award rehabilitative alimony when the plan is concrete, credible, and supported by documentation.
If You Are Opposing Rehabilitative Alimony
You should examine:
- Whether the plan is truly specific and defined
- Whether the requesting spouse has proven the plan’s feasibility
- Whether the spouse has explored reasonable employment options without retraining
- Whether the numbers were selected without evidentiary support
If Support Is Being Paid as Expenses
Be careful. Courts may label mortgage and household expense payments as spousal support. If they do, the child support calculations must reflect that designation.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can help ensure these issues are addressed early so they do not become appellate problems later.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a rehabilitative plan “specific and defined” in Florida?
It should identify the objective, the program or training path, the costs, and the time needed to complete the plan. Vague ideas about retraining usually are not enough.
Can a judge award rehabilitative alimony just because one spouse earns much more than the other?
Not by itself. The court must have evidence supporting the need, ability to pay, and the rehabilitative plan required by statute.
If a court orders one spouse to pay the mortgage, is that “spousal support”?
It can be. If the court characterizes the payment as spousal support, it must be treated as spousal support for child support calculations.
Do parties have to personally state agreement on the record for a settlement to be enforceable?
Generally, there must be clear and unequivocal assent on the record. If there is ambiguity, the court may not treat it as a binding agreement.
Why did the appellate court reverse child support in this case?
Because spousal support received and paid must be included and deducted in the income calculations under section 61.30, and the trial court failed to do that.
How does this case help in a contested support hearing?
It provides authority that awards must be supported by competent substantial evidence and must comply with statutory requirements, especially for rehabilitative alimony and child support accounting.
Talk With a Tampa Divorce Lawyer About Alimony and Support Strategy
Support issues often decide the practical outcome of a divorce, particularly when one spouse’s income has increased or one spouse’s career was disrupted by relocation. If you are facing disputed alimony or child support calculations, a Tampa divorce lawyer can help you gather the evidence needed to support or challenge the requested relief and ensure the court’s decision follows Florida law.
The end of a marriage does not have to mean uncertainty. McKinney Law Group works with Tampa clients to bring structure and clarity to divorce matters, from initial filings through final resolution.
Reach us at 813-428-3400.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.