A 2025 appellate decision, Shouman v. Salama, has provided a sharp and significant clarification of the mandatory, non-negotiable rules for determining alimony in Florida. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment in which a trial court denied a Former Wife’s request for alimony. The appellate court reversed this denial, finding that the trial court had committed two fundamental errors that invalidated its entire analysis.
First, the trial court “conflated” the mandatory two-step alimony analysis. The judge made a specific factual finding that the Former Wife had a “reasonable monthly need of $4,000” but then, in the same breath, contradicted this by finding she had no need because she was “able bodied, capable of working, and receiving a significant amount from equitable distribution.” The appellate court ruled this was an improper mixing of the two distinct analytical steps required by statute.
Second, the trial court found the Former Husband had no ability to pay alimony, concluding he ran a monthly deficit. This finding was based on a critical error: the trial court deducted the Husband’s personal expenses from his net income, even though the Husband’s own financial affidavit admitted that all his expenses were paid by his business. This “phantom deficit” error concealed the Husband’s true, and substantial, ability to pay. The appellate court reversed both the alimony denial and the child support award, remanding the case for a new hearing. This decision is a crucial reminder for any individual in Tampa that the financial analysis in a divorce must be based on procedural precision and mathematical reality.
The Mandatory Alimoy Framework: A Rigid Two-Step Process
In any dissolution of marriage proceeding in Florida, a court’s authority to award alimony is not an arbitrary or emotional decision. It is a rigid, two-step analytical process governed by statute. A trial court’s failure to strictly follow this two-part framework is a clear error of law. The Shouman case is a textbook example of what happens when these two steps are improperly “conflated.”
An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer understands that these steps must be performed in the correct order, as the outcome of the first step determines if the second step is even necessary.
Step 1: The “Gateway” – A Purely Mathematical Test
The first step in any alimony analysis is a threshold, mathematical determination. The statute requires the court to make a “specific factual determination” as to two questions:
- Does the requesting party have an actual need for alimony?
- Does the other party have the ability to pay alimony?
This is not a “discretionary” step. It is a simple, arithmetic calculation based on the financial affidavits and evidence presented at trial.
Determining “Need”: A party’s “need” is calculated by taking their proven, reasonable monthly expenses and subtracting their net monthly income (from all sources). If the result is a negative number (a deficit), a “need” has been established.
Determining “Ability to Pay”: A party’s “ability” is calculated by taking their net monthly income and subtracting their own proven, reasonable monthly expenses. If the result is a positive number (a surplus), an “ability to pay” has been established.
A court must first perform this calculation. If there is no need, or no ability to pay, the alimony analysis stops. If, and only if, the court finds both a need and an ability to pay, does it gain the authority to proceed to the second step.
Step 2: The “Discretionary” Factors – Type and Amount
Once the “gateway” of Step 1 is passed, the court then moves to the discretionary phase. This is where the court must decide the type of alimony (e.g., durational, rehabilitative, bridge-the-gap) and the amount of that alimony.
To make this decision, the court must consider a long list of statutory factors, which include, but are not limited to:
- The standard of living established during the marriage.
- The duration of the marriage.
- The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
- The financial resources of each party, including the nonmarital and marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
- The earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties.
- The contribution of each party to the marriage.
The Trial Court’s “Conflation” Error
The critical mistake in the Shouman case was that the trial judge took the factors from Step 2 and improperly used them to negate the mathematical finding of Step 1.
The judge’s order was fatally contradictory:
- Step 1 Finding: The judge correctly performed the Step 1 calculation and found the Former Wife had a “reasonable monthly need is $4,000 a month.”
- The Contradiction: The judge then immediately found the “Wife did not meet her burden of showing a need.”
- The Flawed Reasoning: The judge’s reason for this contradiction was that the Wife was “able bodied, capable of working, and receiving a significant amount from equitable distribution.”
The appellate court held this was a fundamental misapplication of the law. Being “able bodied,” having an “earning capacity,” and receiving “equitable distribution” are all factors from Step 2 of the analysis. They do not, and cannot, erase a mathematical need that was proven in Step 1.
A party’s “need” is a snapshot of their current, reasonable expenses versus their current, actual income. A party’s “earning capacity” is a future-looking concept. These factors are absolutely relevant, but only in the proper context.
Here is how a Tampa divorce lawyer would argue the correct application:
- Correct Step 1: “The court finds the Former Wife has a net monthly income of $2,000 and reasonable monthly expenses of $6,000. Therefore, she has an actual monthly need of $4,000.”
- Correct Step 2: “Now, in determining the type and amount, the court considers the Step 2 factors. Because the marriage was of a moderate duration, and because the Wife is able-bodied, has a degree, and received $300,000 in equitable distribution, the court finds she has the ability to rehabilitate herself. Therefore, the court will not award long-term durational alimony. Instead, the court awards $2,500 per month in rehabilitative alimony for a period of three years, which is sufficient time for her to use her earning capacity and assets to become self-supporting.”
The trial court in Shouman short-circuited this entire analysis. It used the Step 2 factors to pretend the Step 1 “need” did not exist. This legal “conflation” was a reversible error. This ruling is a crucial clarification for any Tampa resident, confirming that your “earning capacity” does not mean you do not have a “need.” It simply means the type and duration of alimony may be limited.
The “Ability to Pay” Error: Unmasking the “Phantom Deficit”
The trial court’s second major error was just as significant and provides a powerful lesson for any Tampa divorce lawyerlitigating a case involving a business owner. The court found that the Former Husband had no ability to pay alimony, concluding that his net monthly income of $2,980.58 was completely consumed by a monthly deficit of approximately $3,800.
This finding, however, was directly contradicted by the Former Husband’s own evidence. A footnote on his financial affidavit, which was entered into the record, stated: “[a]ll of the Husband’s expenses are being paid through the business.”
This is a “smoking gun” admission. The trial court made the fundamental error of deducting the Husband’s personal expenses from his personal net income when he was not personally paying those expenses.
The appellate court correctly identified this. If his business was paying all $3,800 of his personal expenses, then his $2,980.58 in personal net income was not a deficit at all. It was 100% surplus. This “phantom deficit” completely misrepresented his financial reality and masked his clear ability to pay alimony.
This scenario is exceptionally common in Tampa divorces involving self-employed individuals or owners of small businesses. A business owner’s financial affidavit may show a very modest personal “net income” or salary. However, a forensic review of the business’s records—a service an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will utilize—often reveals that the business is paying for that person’s:
- Vehicle payment and car insurance.
- Cell phone bill.
- Health insurance.
- Personal meals and entertainment, categorized as “business development.”
- Personal travel, categorized as “business conferences.”
These “perks,” or “add-backs,” are, for the purposes of family law, a form of income. The court must “add back” the value of these business-paid personal expenses to the owner’s net income to determine their true ability to pay.
In Shouman, the Husband’s admission made this easy. The trial court’s error was in ignoring that admission. For any Tampa divorce lawyer representing the spouse of a business owner, this case is a powerful authority to argue that a financial affidavit must be scrutinized, and that personal expenses paid by a business must be included in the “ability to pay” calculation. Conversely, any Tampa divorce lawyer representing a business owner must advise their client that attempting to hide personal income in this way is a failed strategy that will be uncovered and used to establish a clear ability to pay.
The “Ripple Effect”: Why Child Support Was Also Reversed
As a final procedural point, the appellate court also reversed the trial court’s child support award. This was not because the child support calculation itself was wrong, but because of the “ripple effect” from the alimony error.
Child support and alimony are mathematically linked. Florida’s child support guidelines are based on the “net income” of both parents. When a court awards alimony, that payment “shifts” the net incomes of both parties.
The correct procedure is:
- First, Determine Alimony: The court must finalize the alimony award (e.g., $1,000 per month).
- Second, Adjust Incomes: The court must recalculate the parties’ net incomes for the child support worksheet. The $1,000 alimony payment is subtracted from the payor’s net income, and it is added to the recipient’s net income.
- Third, Calculate Child Support: The court then uses these new, adjusted net incomes to calculate the final child support amount.
Because the trial court in Shouman was reversed on alimony, its original child support calculation is now based on incorrect income numbers. The appellate court had to reverse the child support award to allow the trial court, on remand, to first determine the new alimony award (if any) and then perform the mandatory “income shift” to recalculate the correct child support.
This demonstrates how a single error in a complex financial case can unravel the entire final judgment. A Tampa divorce lawyer must litigate these issues as part of a single, comprehensive financial picture, not as separate, unrelated claims.
Key Lessons for Tampa Divorce Litigants
The Shouman v. Salama decision provides several crucial, practical lessons for anyone in Tampa facing a divorce involving spousal support.
- The Two-Step Analysis is Mandatory: The alimony statute is not a set of suggestions. A court must first find a mathematical “need” and “ability to pay” before it can ever consider the discretionary factors like earning capacity or assets.
- “Able-Bodied” Does Not Erase “Need”: This is a critical point. You can be fully capable of working, but if you have a present, mathematical deficit, you have a “need” for alimony. Your ability to work is a factor in determining the type and duration of support, not in denying its existence.
- Business Records are the Key: In any case with a self-employed spouse, the financial affidavit is only the beginning. A Tampa divorce lawyer will, and must, seek discovery of the business’s records to uncover the trueincome and “ability to pay” by identifying business-paid personal expenses.
- A Contradictory Order is a Reversible Order: A judge cannot make findings of fact that are internally contradictory. Finding a “$4,000 need” and “no need” in the same order is a fundamental error that will lead to a reversal on appeal.
The financial landscape of a divorce is complex, and the law demands precision. The Shouman case is a powerful example of a trial court’s failure to adhere to this precision, and the appellate court’s willingness to reverse such errors.
The determination of alimony and child support is a technical, evidence-based process. A miscalculation, a “phantom deficit,” or a misapplication of the law can have devastating financial consequences. If you are in Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce involving complex alimony or business-owner income calculations, it is imperative to have skilled legal representation. Contact our office to ensure your financial “need” and your spouse’s “ability to pay” are presented accurately and in accordance with Florida law.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the two-step alimony test in Florida? First, the court must make a mathematical finding of one party’s “need” and the other’s “ability to pay.” Second, if need and ability exist, the court considers statutory factors (like the marriage duration, standard of living, and earning capacity) to determine the type and amount of alimony.
What is a “conflation” error in an alimony case? This is the mistake the Shouman court made. It is when a judge improperly “conflates” or mixes the factors from Step 2 (like “earning capacity” or “assets”) into the Step 1 analysis, using them to incorrectly find that a mathematical “need” does not exist.
How is income calculated for a self-employed person in a Tampa divorce? The court starts with gross receipts and subtracts “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. The court will then “add back” any personal expenses that the business is paying (like a car payment, cell phone, or personal meals) to determine the true, available net income for support.
My spouse’s financial affidavit shows a deficit, but their business pays all their bills. What can I do? This is exactly what happened in the Shouman case. Your Tampa divorce lawyer must prove to the court that those business-paid expenses are a form of income. The spouse’s “net income” from which they pay no expenses is 100% surplus and demonstrates a clear “ability to pay.”
Why was the child support order reversed if the appeal was about alimony? Alimony and child support are linked. Any alimony paid is subtracted from the payor’s income and added to the recipient’s income before child support is calculated. Since the alimony award was reversed, the incomes are now wrong, and the child support must be recalculated.
The McKinney Law Group: Clear Legal Guidance for Tampa Clients Facing Divorce
When emotions are high, you need calm, experienced guidance. We help Tampa clients navigate complex issues like custody, alimony, and property division with clarity and skill.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to speak with an attorney.