Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Is bonus income included in a party’s income for purposes of calculating alimony and/or child support in Florida? The answer depends on if the bonus is regular and continuous. This was an issue in the case Morgan v. Morgan, 2D2024-2115 (Fla. 2d DCA January 7, 2026).
This divorce case was previously appealed, which resulted in the trial court entering an amended final judgment to abide by the appellate court’s prior decision. The former wife appealed the amended final judgment, arguing in part that the trial court erroneously ordered her to pay permanent alimony, erroneously included her bonus in her income for purposes of calculating alimony, and that it erred in changing the valuation date for purposes of equitable distribution.
As to the permanent alimony, because the appellate court determined the case was still pending as of the time the statutes changed to abolish permanent alimony, and the statute stated the changes applied to cases pending as of July 1, 2023, permanent alimony could not be awarded. Regarding her bonus income, the court held “The Former Wife also argues that the trial court erroneously included the yearly bonus she receives from work when determining her ability to pay. We disagree. As this court has noted, a party's bonus income must be included when calculating alimony "when it is regular and continuous." Barlow v. Barlow, 224 So. 3d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). In determining the Former Wife's income, the trial court examined the significant bonuses she had received, and because the bonuses were regular and continuous, they were properly included in the Former Wife's income.”
Finally as to the equitable distribution, the court reversed, holding “It was proper for the trial court, in the original judgment, to use the date of the parties' separation to value the retirement and bank accounts. See Roth v. Roth, 312 So. 3d 1021, 1027-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by selecting the date of separation as the valuation date of the marital home where the court found "that the parties had been separated for three years and that since the separation, the Former Husband had continued to live in the marital home and make improvements to it without assistance from the Former Wife"). However, because no new evidence was considered by the court before entering the amended final judgment and the court did not explain why it changed its previous findings, we direct the trial court to either use the date of separation in valuing the retirement and bank accounts or make findings as to why that date is no longer appropriate.”
This article is for information purposes only and is not legal advice. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to discuss your case and receive legal advice.