HAROLD HUMPHREY AND HRH INSURANCE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
REGENA HUMPHREY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Basis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1991); Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 617 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1993); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ., concur.
COPE, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
On timely motion by the parties, the trial court entered an order of clarification of final judgment which imputed income of $150,000 per year to the husband. This figure is significantly in excess of the income level claimed by the husband.
The order of clarification indicates that this imputed income is based on, inter alia, tax returns of the parties and the insurance agency contract between the husband and the cluster insurance agency in which the husband is a shareholder. On this appeal the wife “does concede the trial court could not have reviewed the tax returns nor the agency agreement and was mistaken in this finding, because neither was introduced into evidence .... ” Appellee’s Answer Brief, at 40 n. 10.
Given this error in the order on which the imputation of income is based, we should reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of imputation of income. I do not believe that we should accept the wife’s argument that the error in the order was harmless, given -that there was other evidence before the trial court'on the issue of the husband’s income. Given that the $150,-000 figure serves as a basis for determining the husband’s ability to pay the award, and will also serve as a base line in the event of future proceedings to enforce the judgment, we should not affirm this order when there is a substantial question about the soundness of the evidentiary basis for it.
I would reverse the judgment and remand for a new hearing on the question of imputation of income to the husband, and for any adjustments to the award that may be necessary or advisable if there is a change in the imputed level of income. With that exception, I concur in affirmance as to the other points on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Roth, 890 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ditions.” .For example, this court has previously affirmed the imposition of "house arrest” and [*1175] wearing an electronic security bracelet as a condition of release even though they are not expressly included in the statute. Alvarez v. Felton, 639 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Williams v. Spears, 814 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (affirming pretrial services in lieu of bond); Houser v. Manning, 719 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (affirming the additional condition to “not use, possess, or…1 / 2
-
Sewell v. Blackman (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…of posting it.4 We emphasize that the 3The court apparently failed to consider other nonmonetary conditions such as placing Sewell under house arrest or ordering him to wear an electronic security bracelet monitored by GPS. See Alvarez v. Felton, 639 So. 2d 994, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of house arrest); see also State v. Patino, 192 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (discussing home detention and GPS monitoring). 4When setting the current bond, the circuit…
Authorities Cited
- Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1991)
- Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)