JANINE CORTEZ-WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLY A. DOUGLASS, JR., 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.
Janine Cortez-Williams appealed a child support order in which the circuit court imputed income to her without making the requisite statutory findings. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that any imputation of income must be supported by appropriate findings under Florida Statute section 61.30 and a determination of the parent's probable earnings level.
The court reversed because the trial court imputed income without making the statutorily required findings and without determining Ms. Cortez-Williams' probable earnings level. The case was remanded for the circuit court to make proper findings and, if appropriate, take additional evidence before entering a new child support order.
[1] A court must make requisite findings of fact under section 61.30, Florida Statutes, to impute income to a party.
[2] Imputing income to an unemployed or underemployed parent requires a determination of their probable earnings level based on recent work history, occupational qualificatio…
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“[A]ny attempt to impute income must be supported by appropriate findings, as specifically required by section 61.30, Fla.Stat. (1991).”
Establishes the legal standard that income imputation requires statutory findings of fact
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Cortez-Williams' financial affidavit stated a monthly income of fifty dollars. The circuit court, without explanation, imputed a monthly income of…
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 Voluntary Unemployment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Janine Cortez-Williams appeals an order setting child support. She raises five issues1 on appeal, but we need address only the first: whether the circuit court failed to make the requisite findings of fact under section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1993), to impute income to Ms. Cortez-Williams. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
“[A]ny attempt to impute income must be supported by appropriate findings, as specifically required by section 61.30, Fla.Stat. (1991).” Wood v. Wood, 632 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).2 Ms. Cortez-Williams’ financial affidavit stated a monthly income of fifty dollars. The circuit court, without explanation, imputed a monthly income of $1733.33.
While it is apparent that the trial court desired to impute income to [Ms. Cortez-Williams], [it] did not make the requisite findings under the statute to impute such income, and moreover, [it] failed to determine the “probable earnings level” of [Ms. Cortez-Williams] upon imputation of such income. Our own review of the record ... has not led to an indication of how the court obtained the child support figure. Accordingly, this cause must be remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of child support.
Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). On remand, the circuit court is free to take additional evidence before entering a child support order. Reversed and remanded.
MICKLE, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . The issues raised but not addressed are: (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion with respect to the amount of the child support obligation imposed; (2) whether the circuit court's child support order violates the public policy of the state of Florida; (3) whether the circuit court erred with respect to the amount of child care costs taken into account pursuant to section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes (1993); and (4) whether the circuit court erred in failing to reduce the amount of child care costs taken into account by twenty-five percent, as required by section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes (1993).
. The version of that section applicable to the present case is identical to the 1991 version and provides:
Income shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such employment or underemployment is found to be voluntary on that parent's part, absent physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control. In the event of such voluntary unemployment or underemployment, the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community; however, the court may refuse to impute income to a primary residential parent if the court finds it necessary for the parent to stay home with the child.
§ 61.30(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. Newman Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…remand for the purpose of reconsidering and reconstituting the final judgment.10 If necessary, and appropriate, the trial judge may take additional testimony to determine proper valuation of assets, and liabilities. See Cortez-Williams v. Douglass, 659 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Saare v. Saare, 610 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Nicewonder v. Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In addition, the trial court may reconsider the alimony award and its denial of attorney fees and costs to the fo…
-
Smith v. Smith, 737 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ng income. “It is error for a trial court to impute income to a supporting spouse without setting forth the amounts imputed and the sources of this income.” Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So. 2d 590, 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Cortez-Williams v. Douglass, 659 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Wood v. Wood, 632 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). During the marriage, the former husband was well-employed and, in 1987, he became a “master of the vessel” (captain) in the Merchant Marine, which provided him with an average gr…
-
McDUFFIE v. McDUFFIE, 155 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…icularized findings required to support the amount of imputed income. The imputation must be reversed and the case remanded. On remand, the circuit court may take further evidence2 on the amount of income to impute. See Cortez-Williams v. Douglass, 659 So. 2d 1250, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing minimum wage imputation where amount not supported by record, but stating that “[o]n remand, the circuit court is free to take additional evidence before entering a child support order”). Also on remand, because…
Authorities Cited
- Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Koby v. Bivens, 632 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)