STUART T. SHAPIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
YVONNE M. SHAPIRO, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1998-04-15
Nos. 97-2057, 97-3300
Dell, J., Polen, J., Stevenson, J.
710 So. 2d 114 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Court affirmed dissolution judgment but reversed child support award because trial court failed to account for alimony paid by former husband when calculating child support obligations under Florida statute.


Holding

Child support must be recalculated to account for alimony paid by the obligor spouse as required by statute.


Headnotes

[1] Alimony paid by obligor spouse must be deducted from obligor's gross income and included in recipient spouse's gross income when calculating child support guidelines amou…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“spousal support paid pursuant to a court order shall be included in the recipient spouse's gross income and deducted from the gross income of the paying spouse”

Statutory requirement for accounting alimony in child support calculations under § 61.30(2)(a)9, (3)(g), Fla. Stat.

Facts & Procedural History

Former husband appealed final judgment of dissolution, challenging nearly every aspect including child support and alimony awards.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution wherein the appellant, the former husband, has challenged nearly every aspect of the judgment. We affirm the judgment in all respects, save one — the amount of the former husband’s child support obligation.

Here, contrary to the plain language of the statute, the child support calculations reflected in the final judgment did not take into account the alimony award paid by the former husband and received by the former wife. See § 61.30(2)(a)9, (3)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp.l996)(stating that spousal support paid pursuant to a court order shall be included in the recipient spouse’s gross income and deducted from the gross income of the paying spouse). Because of this oversight, we reverse the award of child support and remand for recalculation. We also note that since the parties’ respective obligations for the child’s medical, dental, and optical expenses not covered by insurance were linked to the percentage of the child support guidelines amount that each spouse was to bear, such award may also be reconsidered on remand and should be limited to those expenses that are “reasonable and necessary,” see Donsky-Levine v. Levine, 658 So. 2d 1023, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

DELL, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
    …require that spousal support paid pursuant to a court order be included in the recipient spouse’s gross income and deducted from the gross income of the paying spouse. See Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Shapiro v. Shapiro, 710 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The calculation of the relative child support obligations of the parties in this case therefore depends upon whether alimony is awarded on remand. If no alimony is awarded, the husband’s percentage share of the child support ob…
  • Whittle v. State, 903 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …We have often emphasized the need for independent evidence of criminal activity or corroboration of questionable allegations of criminal conduct in order to develop the level of suspicion necessary to establish probable cause. See Fabian v. State, 710 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Lawal v. State, 666 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Cunningham v. State, 591 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). This case fits squarely within that line of cases. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw