CHARLES ROBERT SILBERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LESLI KIM SILBERMAN, 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.
A father appealed a child support judgment contending the trial court improperly imputed income without evidentiary support. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court made a factual determination of the father's actual income based on substantial evidence, not an imputation of income for an unemployed or underemployed person.
The trial court did not err because it did not impute income but rather made a factual determination of the father's actual income based on substantial, competent evidence in the record. Imputation applies only to voluntarily unemployed or underemployed persons, which the father was not.
[1] A trial court may make a factual determination of a party's actual income based on substantial, competent evidence in the record, even if that income is informal or condu…
[2] A trial court's determination of a party's actual income, supported by competent evidence, is not an imputation of income.
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“Imputing" income is the court's making of a determination of what income a "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed" spouse would probably be earning if that spouse were employed to the best of his or her potential, as set forth in Section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995).”
Establishes the legal definition of income imputation and distinguishes it from factual determinations of actual income
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father is a self-employed apparel manufacturer's representative who maintains very informal financial records for a cash-based business with multi…
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 Self-Employment Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The father appeals a final judgment awarding child support, contending that the trial court erred in imputing income to the father without evidentiary support or specific findings of fact as to the sources of the additional income.
We affirm the trial court.
At the hearings on child support the father, a self-employed apparel manufacturer’s representative, testified to very informal financial recordkeeping for his business, which business is conducted in cash, using several bank accounts where money is deposited and withdrawn randomly. Although the father and his accountant testified to decreased income over the past few years due to competition and other matters, the trial court found from the testimony and other evidence before it that the father’s actual income was more than that represented by the father. The court awarded child support accordingly.
The father’s contention that the court should not have imputed income to him is misplaced.
The trial court did not impute income to the father. “Imputing” income is the court’s making of a determination of what income a “voluntarily unemployed or underemployed” spouse would probably be earning if that spouse were employed to the best of his or her potential, as set forth in Section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). The father was not unemployed or underemployed in this case, and there was no need to “impute” income. Rather the trial court here made a factual determination of the father’s actual income based on substantial, competent evidence in the record.
We find no error in the court’s doing so. See Bucci v. Bucci 350 So. 2d 786, 788-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Klein v. Klein, 122 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…pey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Rose v. Ford, 831 So. 2d 763,(Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(dictum); see also Klein v. Klein, 122 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Silvers v. Silvers, 274 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Its application compels the rejection of the appellant’s argument that, on the merits, he should not be in jail for civil contempt. In our judgment, he is in the right place for the right reason.5 Affirmed. GODERICH, J., concur…
-
Bromson v. Dep't OF Revenue & Donna Cantwell, 710 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ily unemployed or underemployed. However, the court did not find that the appellant was unemployed or underemployed, but rather that his earnings were greater than he represented them to be. As the third district explained in Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) this is not imputing income under section 61.30(2)(b), but is simply making a factual determination of the parent’s actual income under section 61.30(2)(a). Although section 61.30(2)(a) does not require trial courts to make spec…
-
Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ewski, 793 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Beniaminov v. Beniaminov, 789 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Bromson v. Dep’t of Revenue, 710 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ugarte, 608 So. 2d at 838. Based on this evidence, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. We find merit, however, in the husband’s argument that the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s imputati…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lily Klein v. Klein, 122 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)