## Facts

- Joseph Alizzi (husband) and Brenda Alizzi (wife) were married for twenty-three years and separated in their late sixties.
- During the marriage, the parties owned a successful restaurant and lived in an expensive home.
- After separation, the wife moved into her adult daughter’s home and paid the daughter $1,800 per month for rent and utilities.
- At the time of separation, the wife had liquid assets of about $82,000 in two checking accounts and about $215,000 in an IRA.
- Over the next sixteen months, the wife retained counsel and a forensic accountant and paid about $128,000 in attorney’s fees and forensic-accounting fees.
- The wife withdrew $75,000 from her IRA to help fund a down payment on a larger home for the wife, her daughter, and the daughter’s children.
- The IRA withdrawal resulted in a $40,911 tax penalty.
- By the temporary-relief hearing, the wife’s liquid assets were reduced to about $10,000 in checking accounts and about $72,000 in her IRA, and she still owed additional attorney and forensic-accounting fees.
- The wife’s only income was Social Security and pension benefits totaling $3,424 per month; she also had recurring expenses including health insurance.
- The wife sought temporary monthly support of $10,174 and requested that the husband pay temporary attorney’s fees and costs (about $128,798.12 by the hearing).
- The wife’s forensic accountant testified the wife needed $10,174 per month, but acknowledged the calculation included anticipated expenses, including $7,000 per month for a furnished apartment the wife was not then renting.
- The husband’s forensic accountant estimated the wife’s monthly need at $6,858.
- The circuit court awarded the wife $1,494 per month in temporary support and denied any temporary attorney’s fees and costs.
- The wife appealed the nonfinal temporary-relief order to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by awarding only $1,494 per month in temporary support where the evidence showed substantially higher need and a long-term marital lifestyle?
2. Did the circuit court err by wholly denying the wife’s request for temporary attorney’s fees and costs despite evidence of the wife’s depleted funds and the parties’ relative financial circumstances?

## Decision

- The Fourth District reversed the temporary-support award.
- The Fourth District reversed the order denying temporary attorney’s fees and costs.
- The case was remanded for the circuit court to reconsider temporary support and temporary fees and costs consistent with the appellate opinion.
- The court indicated the wife was not automatically entitled to the full amounts she requested, but the awards had to be supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Temporary support in a dissolution action must be based on the requesting spouse’s need and the other spouse’s ability to pay, considered in light of the marital standard of living.
- A temporary support award may be reversed when it falls outside the range supported by the evidence of need presented at the temporary-relief hearing.
- A trial court may reject speculative or unsupported expense components, but it must still set temporary support at an amount grounded in record evidence.
- Temporary attorney’s fees and costs in dissolution cases are intended to ensure both parties have a fair ability to secure counsel; courts assess relative need and relative ability to pay.
- A complete denial of temporary fees and costs can be reversible error when the record shows the requesting spouse has substantially depleted available funds to litigate and the other spouse has superior access to resources; any fee award on remand must be reasonable and necessary.

## Conclusion

In *Alizzi v. Alizzi*, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a nonfinal temporary-relief order that awarded the wife only $1,494 per month in temporary support and denied all temporary attorney’s fees and costs after a long-term marriage and evidence that the wife’s need was many times higher under both parties’ forensic-accounting testimony. Because the wife’s only income was $3,424 per month and she had greatly reduced her liquid assets—partly due to litigation expenses and an IRA withdrawal penalty—the appellate court held the temporary support amount and total fee denial were not supported by the record and remanded for recalculation of temporary support and reconsideration of a reasonable temporary fee contribution.


Alizzi v. Alizzi, 350 So. 3d 758 (2022)