JAMES DWAYNE COPELAND, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ROSEMARY COPELAND, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to allow tithing (10% charitable contributions) as a deduction from gross income when calculating child support obligations. The court held that the child support statute permits only specifically enumerated deductions, and tithing is not among them.
Tithing is not an allowable deduction from gross income under section 61.30, Florida Statutes. The statute limits deductions to those specifically enumerated in the statute, which include federal and state taxes, self-employment taxes, mandatory union dues, mandatory retirement payments, health insurance, and court-ordered support for other children—but not charitable contributions or tithing.
[1] Child support guidelines statutes permitting deductions from gross income are intended to allow only those items specifically listed within the statute.
[2] Tithing is not an allowable deduction from gross income for the purpose of calculating child support under section 61.30, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 language of 61.30(3)1 was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”
Establishes the statutory interpretation principle that the court applies to reject tithing as a deductible item.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Rosemary Copeland were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. During their marriage, both parties tithed 10% of their income to th…
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
WOLF, Judge.
Both James Dwayne Copeland, the former husband in this dissolution of marriage proceeding, and Rosemary Copeland, the former wife, appeal several aspects of the partial final judgment dissolving marriage. We approve the trial court’s rulings as to all the contested issues except for that regarding the deduction for tithing in calculating available income for purposes of determining child support.
The partial final judgment dissolving marriage states in relevant part:
17. The parties agree that, during the marriage, they faithfully and reliably tithed 10 percent of their income to their church. At trial, the wife testified she has not continued this practice after the separation, although the husband testified that he still makes this contribution. Both parties acknowledge that this tithing was money committed to their church and was never available for family consumption; for these reasons, the court would consider both parties’ tithing as a deduction from their gross income for purposes of calculating child support, as authorized by section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1991).
The language of 61.30(3)1 was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income. Hutslar v. Lappin, 652 So. 2d 432, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Money tithed is not included as a deduction under the statute. Because the statute does not allow discretion in establishing allowable deductions, the trial court erred in ordering the amount tithed be deducted from the gross income when calculating child support.
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final judgement of dissolution of marriage which provides for the deduction for tithing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur. . § 61.30, Child support guidelines
(3) Allowable deductions from gross income shall include:
(a)Federal, state, and local income tax deductions, adjusted for actual filing status and allowable dependents and income tax liabilities.
(b) Federal insurance contributions or self-employment tax.
(c) Mandatory union dues. (d) Mandatory retirement payments.
(e) Health insurance payments, excluding payments for coverage of the minor child.
(f)Court-ordered support for other children which is actually paid.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ce the apparent annual income available to the Husband, they should have been considered by the trial court in making the ability-to-pay alimony calculation. Cf. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 912 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Finally, we must also consider the judgment as it relates to the Wife’s need. Once again, we are unable to reconcile how this aspect of the equation was determined by the trial judge. It may be that $5,000 per month in permanen…
-
Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…d support actually paid for children other than those shared by the parties to the subject dissolution. See, e.g., Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Batts v. Batts, 600 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“The language of section 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”). Without the improper $8,266.79 deduction from appellee’s gross income, appellee’s annual income…
-
Camus v. Prokosch, 882 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…t these payments were deductible under section 61.30(3)(g), and no other deduction applies, the payments to appellee’s wife cannot be deducted for the purposes of calculating the father’s net income and support obligations. See Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing in part, finding reduction of gross income for 10% of income which was regularly tithed to church during the marriage was inappropriate where guidelines did not include tithing as deduction and did not grant discretion…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hutslar v. Lappin, 652 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)