JOHN C. STODTKO, APPELLANT,
v.
CELIA A. STODTKO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this marriage dissolution appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's imputation of $10.00 per hour income to the former husband for child support purposes, holding that income can only be imputed at levels previously earned, not at speculative future earning potential.
Income can be imputed to a former spouse for child support purposes only at levels the former spouse has actually earned in the past, not at speculative future earning levels never achieved. The trial court erred in imputing $10.00 per hour when the former husband's maximum actual earnings were $7.61 per hour.
[1] Child support may be imputed to a former spouse at a level the spouse has previously earned, but not at a level never before earned in their current line of work, absent…
[2] Imputing income to a former spouse at a rate higher than they have ever earned in their current employment is reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The law seems clear that for child support purposes income can be imputed to a former spouse at a level which the former spouse has, in fact, earned in the past, but, absent special circumstances, not at a level which, as here, the former spouse has never before earned in his/her current line of work.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for income imputation in child support cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn C. Stodtko is a construction worker who never earned more than $7.61 per hour in his line of work. He relocated from Dade County to Orange County…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the former husband John C. Stodtko from a final judgment of marriage dissolution. We agree with the former husband that the trial court committed reversible error in imputing $10.00 an hour on a forty-hour work week or $400 a week as income to the former husband for the purpose of determining child support in this case. We, accordingly, reverse as to this aspect of the final judgment and affirm in all other respects.
It is undisputed on this record that the former husband is a construction worker who never earned more than $7.61 an hour in his line of work. He has since moved from Dade County to Orange County where he is earning less money per hour as a construction worker; there is also some opinion evidence that a person with his employment skills could have arguably earned $10.00 an hour in the future as a construction worker had he stayed in Dade County, although admittedly he never before earned such income. The law seems clear that for child support purposes income can be imputed to a former spouse at a level which the former spouse has, in fact, earned in the past, but, absent special circumstances, not at a level which, as here, the former spouse has never before earned in his/her current line of work. See Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638, 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Scapin v. Scapin, 547 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Consequently, it was error for the trial court to impute income to the former husband at $10.00 an hour or $400 a week; the trial court should have instead imputed income to the husband up to a maximum of $7.61 an hour on a forty-hour work week which is the highest income the former husband earned before he voluntarily left Dade County to work for less money in Orange County.
We find no merit in the remaining point on appeal urged by the former husband. Accordingly, the final judgment under review is reversed solely as to (1) the trial court’s finding that the former husband has an imputed income of $10.00 an hour as a construction worker, and (2) the child support award of $602.50 a month based on such erroneously imputed income; in all other respects, however, the final judgment under review is affirmed; the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions (1) to impute income to the former husband up to a maximum of $7.61 an hour on a forty-hour work week, and (2) to set a lower child support award based on this imputed income.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. Newman Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…onder v. Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Calamore v. Calamore, 555 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). . Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (error to impute earnings to husband higher than he had ever earned in his job as construction worker, for child support purpose); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (error to require former husband to exhaust…
-
Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Rather, the trial court seems to base the alimony award on the fact that the husband once “contributed” $49,000 to the marriage in 1992. While a trial court may base an alimony award on past earnings, Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and may consider the family’s standard of living during the marriage to determine a spouse’s ability to pay, Cook v. Cook, 574 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the record here clearly shows that the family lived beyond its means. S…
-
Smith v. Smith, 737 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…n the case at bar, a trial court has discretion to impute income in the amount the person was earning before voluntarily reducing his or her income. Stelk v. Stelk, 699 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Kovar, 648 So. 2d at 178-79; Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Work, 632 So. 2d at 1119. Cf. Robinson v. Robinson, 713 So. 2d 437, 438-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (where trial court imputed income based solely on former husband’s prior salary, without considering his occupational qualifications or…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Scapin v. Scapin, 547 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)