NIVIA LASCAIBAR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT A. LASCAIBAR, 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.
The court reversed the child support judgment, increasing the father's imputed income from $50,000 to $80,000 annually based on his deliberate abandonment of a lucrative optometric practice, eliminating the $20,000 attribution to the mother who had been unemployed for over five years, and remanding for recomputation and enforcement proceedings.
A trial court errs in imputing income to a parent who deliberately abandoned a lucrative practice when the imputed amount is substantially less than income actually earned during the marriage, and in attributing income to an unemployed parent without evidentiary support.
[1] When a parent deliberately abandons a lucrative income-producing practice to avoid child support obligations, income must be imputed based on earnings actually demonstrat…
[2] Income cannot be attributed to a parent for child support calculation purposes without evidentiary support, particularly where the parent has been unemployed for an exten…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 amount attributed, $50,000.00 per annum, was far less than the sum indisputably shown to have been earned by the husband during the course of the marriage”
Court's explanation for why the imputed income was erroneous
The father abandoned a lucrative optometric practice apparently to deprive his wife and children of support. The mother had been unemployed for over f…
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 Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below approving the general master’s report with respect to child support is reversed because (1) while income was correctly imputed to the father because of the unrebutted showing that he had deliberately abandoned a lucrative optometric practice apparently solely in order to deprive his wife and children of his ability to support them, Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534 (Fla.1992), the amount attributed, $50,000.00 per annum, was far less than the sum indisputably shown to have been earned by the husband during the course of the marriage.
Accordingly, we increase the amount of attributed income to $80,000.00 per annum. (2) On the other side of the coin, the record does not support the attribution of $20,000.00 per year to the former wife who had not been employed for over five years prior to the final hearing and since the birth of the first of her two children. Since we are informed that she has since become employed, the issue of her income should be addressed after remand.
We also find clear error in the master’s and trial court’s refusal to consider applications to require the husband to make support payments and to hold him in contempt for not doing so.
In accordance with these holdings, the judgment under review is reversed and the cause remanded to (a) recompute the child support award under the guidelines on the basis of $80,000.00 per year in income attributed to the husband, and an amount to be determined in post-remand proceedings in income to the wife and (b) for the prompt disposition of the applications for enforcement of the outstanding support orders.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nivia Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…support arrearages from her former husband. We agree. The trial court specifically found Albert Laseaibar had “willfully, intentionally and contumaciously failed and refused to comply” with this court’s earlier opinion, see Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 658 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(herein Laseaibar I), as well as the subsequent orders of the trial court to enforce the mandate on this matter. In Lascaibar I, 658 So. 2d at 170-71, we concluded: The judgment below approving the general master’s report with re…
-
Nivia Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 156 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…e have a long history before this Court. In 1995, this Court reversed the trial court’s order which improperly attributed incorrect annual incomes to both parties and remanded for a proper calculation of support payments. See Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 658 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). After remand, the trial court entered a commitment and final judgment against the Father for the balance of unpaid child support plus interest, and adjudicated the Father in contempt. In 1998, this Court held that the trial court…
-
Waldera v. Waldera, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…l be presumed to continue unless the contrary is shown,” and holding that, if appellant’s “ability to earn that amount of money had changed . . . he was called upon to make an explanation or an answer” and “failed to do so”); Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 658 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that “the amount attributed [to the former husband], $50,000.00 per annum, was far less than the sum indisputably shown to have been earned by the husband during the course of the marriage”). By the trial court’s and…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1992)