## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1959 and dissolved their 28-year marriage in Florida.
- Husband had significantly higher income, earning over $47,000 annually plus an $819 monthly military pension.
- Wife had limited education and work history; in later years she performed clerical and basic accounting work and earned about $8,500 in 1986.
- Wife suffered substantial physical and psychological problems, including suicide attempts after husband sought divorce and ongoing psychiatric treatment.
- After separation, wife engaged in serious criminal conduct toward husband, resulting in criminal prosecution and sanctions.
- The criminal conduct did not significantly deplete marital assets.

## Issues

1. Whether a dissolution court in a no-fault state may structure equitable distribution, debt allocation, fees, and alimony to penalize a spouse for post-separation criminal misconduct that did not materially diminish marital assets and was already punished criminally.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imputing income to the wife for a period when evidence showed mental health and probation-related conditions would prevent employment.
3. Whether the overall dissolution scheme improperly “shortchanged” the wife given the marriage’s duration, standard of living, the wife’s condition, and the parties’ comparative financial resources.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final judgment of dissolution and remanded for reconsideration.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an overall distribution and support scheme that excessively penalized the wife for criminal conduct that did not significantly deplete marital assets and had already resulted in a criminal sanction.
- The court concluded the combined effect of property distribution, debt allocation, limited fee shifting, and the alimony award (including income imputation) produced an inequitable result in light of statutory and equitable factors.

## Legal Principles

- In no-fault dissolution, marital misconduct generally should not be used to impose punitive property or support outcomes absent a demonstrated, material financial impact on the marital estate.
- Equitable distribution and alimony determinations must account for the marriage’s duration, the marital standard of living, the parties’ relative financial resources and earning capacities, and a spouse’s physical and emotional condition.
- Income may be imputed only when supported by evidence of the spouse’s actual ability and opportunity to earn; imputation is improper where the record shows disabling mental health limitations and constraints that prevent employment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a new dissolution determination because the trial court’s combined property, debt, fee, and alimony rulings functioned as an improper civil penalty for the wife’s post-separation criminal conduct and failed to equitably reflect the marriage’s length, the parties’ financial disparity, and the wife’s impaired earning capacity.


Mosbarger v. Mosbarger, 547 So. 2d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989)