JANET MARIE SOHACKI, WIFE/APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS JOHN SOHACKI, HUSBAND/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 child support modification case, the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's order denying the mother's petition to increase child support and its sua sponte decrease of child support. The court held that the trial court erred by not attributing all business income generated by the father's S-corporation to him as income for child support purposes, and by decreasing support without a petition requesting such relief.
The court reversed and remanded the denial of Mother's petition for increased child support because the trial court appeared bound by Father's undisputed testimony despite the corporation generating substantially more income that Father reported on his personal tax return. The court reversed outright the decrease in child support because Father never petitioned for a decrease and all proceedings concerned Mother's petition for an increase.
[1] A trial court errs by granting relief not sought by the pleadings, as jurisdiction is exercised only within the scope of the pleadings.
[2] Due process requires a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties.
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 trial court apparently felt bound to accept Father's undisputed testimony that he received only approximately $45,000 in salary and distributions from his Subehapter S corporation, although the corporation generated approximately $100,000, which Father claimed and paid taxes on on his personal tax return”
Establishes the factual error in the trial court's analysis of Father's income for child support purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMother sought to increase Father's child support obligation. Father testified he received only approximately $45,000 in salary and distributions from …
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 Income Attribution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Janet Sohacki’s (“Mother”) appeal from an order denying her petition to increase Thomas Sohacki’s (“Father”) child support obligation, as well as her request for attorney’s fees. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of these issues, as the trial court apparently felt bound to accept Father’s undisputed testimony that he received only approximately $45,000 in salary and distributions from his Subehapter S corporation, although the corporation generated approximately $100,000, which Father claimed and paid taxes on on his personal tax return. See Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (determining in alimony modification proceeding that interest, dividend, and business income was properly attributed to husband as “income” under chapter 61, despite his claim that the income was only reported for tax purposes and not actually received), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1312 (Fla.1991).
Moreover, we reverse outright that portion of the order decreasing Father’s child support obligation, insofar as Father never petitioned for such a decrease, and all proceedings below revolved around Mother’s petition for an increase in Father’s child support obligation. Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that an award of relief not sought by the pleadings is error; court’s jurisdiction can be exercised only within the scope of the pleadings); Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that “[f]undamental concepts of due process require a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned”).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. WOLF, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zold v. Zold, 911 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2005)…PARIENTE, C.J. We have for review Zold v. Zold, 880 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which expressly and directly conflicts with Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction.1 The conflict issue is whether “pass-through” income2 from an S corporation that is not actually distributed to the shareholder-spouse is to be…
-
Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…his own, after applying the child support guidelines to his findings on the income of the parties. The issue of a downward modification was not properly before the court. See Wynn v. Wynn, 727 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment modifying the child support and remand to the trial court with directions to reinstate the child support ordered in the 1994 final judgment. Affirmed in part, reverse…
-
Claudio Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…nd child support purposes. We disagree and find that the record supports the award, and amount of, child and spousal support. See § 61.046(4), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.08(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). As his final issue, and related to the latter issue, the former husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding permanent periodic alimony to the former wife bec…
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
- Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)