Amanda Sheff v. Michael Kevin Sheff

── Amanda Sheff v. Michael Kevin Sheff ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT AMANDA SHEFF, Appellant, v. MICHAEL KEVIN SHEFF, Appellee. No. 4D2025-0673 [June 3, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Lorena V. Mastrarrigo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062023DR003055AXXXCE. Jonathan Thomas Mann and Robin I. Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellant. Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing the trial court erred in (1) finding the husband did not have the ability to pay durational alimony, (2) finding the wife did not have a need for durational alimony, (3) imputing income to the wife, (4) finding the wife in contempt for violating an agreed order regarding the children’s cell phones, (5) denying the wife’s request for attorney’s fees, and (6) denying the wife’s request to clarify an order reserving jurisdiction on the husband’s obligation to obtain life insurance to secure his child support payments. We affirm issues 1 through 5 and write only to address issue 1. We dismiss issue 6 for lack of jurisdiction. The parties married in 2009. Two children were born during the marriage. In 2023, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The husband filed a counterpetition. At the time of the November 2024 final hearing, the husband, age fifty- nine, had worked for a global credit card company for approximately eight years. The husband’s initial position was senior vice president of all accounts, followed by senior vice president of global strategy, and then vice president of chief of staff. On November 6, 2023, the husband’s position of chief of staff was eliminated. On January 1, 2024, he began a six-month temporary assignment on a special project in the global partnerships and segments team. The company extended the assignment for an additional six months, ending on December 31, 2024. It was unrefuted in the record that the husband’s position at the company would terminate on December 31, 2024—the month following the final hearing. The parties agreed to this in a pretrial stipulation, and the husband testified to this during the hearing. The husband had not been offered any further or new positions at the company. The husband did not expect to get another extension working in the global partnerships and segments team. The husband testified he had reached out to friends, colleagues, and human resources, but was unsuccessful in securing another position at the company. The company was downsizing, and his background and skill set did not align with the job requirements for the few open positions. The husband expressed concern about his ability to earn anywhere near what he had earned in the past. A company representative confirmed that the husband’s special assignment was set to terminate on December 31, 2024, and that no new assignment had been offered. The wife agreed there was no evidence that the husband would have a job with the company after December 31, 2024. The husband’s CPA ascribed an income to the husband of $62,350 per year based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s median earnings. In contrast, the wife did not present any evidence of the husband’s potential earning levels or job prospects. Instead, she elicited testimony only about the husband’s past earnings. During his employment with the company, the husband earned a base salary of $300,000 to $305,000 plus bonuses and stocks. The parties’ tax returns showed the husband earned $706,088 in 2020, $663,762 in 2021, $707,900 in 2022, and $627,557 in 2023. The trial court entered a final judgment for dissolution