ABDULADIM A. ELREMMASH, APPELLANT,
v.
MONICA J. PETERSON, 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 former husband challenges a trial court's amended supplemental judgment increasing his child support obligation and awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife, as well as affirming her sole authority to determine the minor child's religious practices. The appellate court reverses the support and fee determinations based on improperly imputed income but affirms the religious custody provision as consistent with a recognized Louisiana judgment.
The trial court erred in imputing income from family gifts and loans when modifying child support and awarding attorney's fees, and those determinations are reversed and remanded for reconsideration without such imputed income. The portion of the judgment awarding the mother authority to determine the child's religious practices is affirmed as a proper recognition of a prior Louisiana judgment under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, with no demonstrated change of circumstances.
[1] Income should not be imputed to a party based on family gifts and loans when determining child support obligations or awarding attorney's fees.
[2] A court must recognize and enforce a foreign judgment under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act if the state has adopted the act.
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 trial court erred in imputing income to him based on family gifts and loans when considering whether to modify appellant's child support obligation and to award attorney's fees to appellee”
Establishes the primary error requiring reversal and remand
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant is the former husband and father of the parties' minor child. The trial court issued an amended final supplemental judgment that increased a…
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 Imputation Of Income For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the former husband and father of the parties’ minor child, challenges the trial court’s amended final supplemental judgment which increased his child support obligation and also determined that the appellee, the former wife and mother of the minor child, “shall make all decisions regarding the religious practices of the minor child” in her capacity as sole parental custodian. He also challenges the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the former wife. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in imputing income to him based on family gifts and loans when considering whether to modify appellant’s child support obligation and to award attorney’s fees to appellee. See, e.g., Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sol v. Sol, 656 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Edwards v. Edwards, 615 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a redetermination on these issues without regard to this imputed income.
We affirm, however, that portion of the judgment which allows the mother the right to determine the religious practices of the minor child. The trial court’s determination in that regard is a duplication of a provision of a Louisiana judgment which the appellant sought to modify.1 Because we are bound to recognize this foreign judgment under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, which Florida and Louisiana have adopted,2 see In re Adoption of C.L.W., 467 So. 2d 1106, 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and because the appellant has shown no change of circumstances regarding this condition, we must affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . This judgment was affirmed on appeal. Schultz v. Elremmash, 615 So. 2d 396 (La.App. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 617 So. 2d 911 (La.1993).
. Florida adopted the act in 1977. See Ch. 77-433, Laws of Fla. Louisiana adopted the act in 1978. See Wachter v. Wachter, 439 So. 2d 1260, 1264 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983); LSA — R.S. 13:1700 to 13:1724.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cozier v. Varry M. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…e gifts as additional income imputed to the husband. Jones v. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that in determining child support, the computation of imputed income must not be based on family gifts or loans); Elremmash v. Peterson, 676 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (same). We find no error in the trial court’s decision to include as income to the husband those regular and expected employment benefits he received — such as medical insurance, term life insurance, the use of a company car, and…
-
Jones v. Dorinda L. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…d contributions in the calculation of gross income, not net income. On remand the trial court is reminded that, in determining child support, this computation of imputed income must not be based upon family gifts or loans. See Elremmash v. Peterson, 676 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). With regard to equitable distribution of marital liabilities, Mr. Jones testified that he would be willing to accept responsibility for the family’s debts owed to Belk’s, J.C. Penney’s, Burdines, Discover, Balyer Finance, Finger…
-
Bator v. Osborne, 983 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ourt did not use this additional finding in performing its imputed-income calculation. For guidance on remand, however, we note that family gifts and loans may generally not be used to impute income to a child support obligor. Elremmash v. Peterson, 676 So. 2d 525, 525-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); but see Cooper v. Kahn, 696 So. 2d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing section 61.30(2)(a)(13), Florida Statutes, which includes in the definition of gross income ”[r]e-imbursed expenses or in kind payments to the exten…
Authorities Cited
- Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- SOL v. SOL, 656 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- In re The Adoption OF C.L.W. v. Weeks, 467 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 615 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)