CARLOS A. IGLESIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
PAULINE P. IGLESIAS, 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.
Carlos Iglesias appeals a divorce judgment that imputed income to him for child support purposes based on newspaper employment advertisements for roofing positions. The Florida appellate court reversed the imputed income determination, holding that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to establish the husband's ability to earn at the imputed rate.
The court reversed the imputed income determination, holding that the trial court's reliance on newspaper advertisements was insufficient to support income imputation because there was no evidence that the jobs were available to the husband, at what rate of pay, or that he could obtain forty hours per week of employment on a year-round basis.
[1] Child support calculations cannot be based on speculative job availability or earning potential not supported by the record.
[2] Imputing income to a party for child support purposes requires a showing of their ability to earn income and the availability of employment opportunities.
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“These conclusions are not supported by the record. There is nothing to indicate that any of these jobs are available to the husband, and if so, at what rate of pay. There is nothing to establish the husband's ability to be employed forty hours per week on a nearly year-round basis.”
The court's holding that the trial court's income imputation lacked evidentiary support and made unsupported assumptions about job availability, pay rates, and work hours.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in New York in 1986 and had two children. The husband, an unemployed roofing mechanic, testified he had never earned more than $12…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Carlos Iglesias appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which imputes income to him for the purpose of child support. We reverse.
The parties were married in New York in 1986 and had two children. In 1996 the wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in Florida. The husband, who resides in New York, appeared at the final hearing pro se. The family home, with little equity, was the parties’ sole asset. The husband testified that he is an unemployed roofing mechanic who has never earned more than $12 per hour. His 1995 W-2 statement, which was attached to his financial affidavit, showed income for that year of $1,374. The wife testified that he had earned $22.50 an hour in New York prior to their move to Florida. The husband denied that to be true and the wife offered nothing in support of her statement. The wife then entered into evidence the employment section of The Herald Statesman, a New York newspaper, for two different dates, July 7 and 14, 1996. These employment ads reflected five job offers for roofers with pay between $10 and $20 per hour. Several ads required experience and/or tools.
Relying on these ads, the trial court imputed income to the husband at $20 per hour for forty hours a week and then reduced that amount by 5% on the probability that there would be less work in the winter months. These conclusions are not supported by the record. There is nothing to indicate that any of these jobs are available to the husband, and if so, at what rate of pay. There is nothing to establish the husband’s ability to be employed forty hours per week on a nearly year-round basis. We have sympathy for everyone involved in this case: for the wife and children who need support and are not receiving it; for the husband who says he loves his children and wants to support them but cannot find a job; for the trial court which tried to resolve a difficult issue without adequate proof; and for the wife’s lawyer who is working for free. We are, nonetheless, required to reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of child support. See Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE and GREEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…positions available seeking someone of the Former Husband’s age, experience, and training and paying $65,000 per year, there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s imputation of income to the Former Husband. Cf. Iglesias v. Iglesias, 711 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that it was error to impute income to former husband based on roofing jobs listed in newspaper when there was no evidence to establish that any of the jobs were actually available [*285] to the former husband or what the…
-
Guard v. Guard, 993 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…impute income to former husband when former wife presented evidence of prevailing earnings level in community, but not evidence of positions available at earnings level or that former husband qualified for available positions); Iglesias v. Iglesias, 711 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that it was error to impute income to former husband based on roofing jobs listed in newspaper without evidence that jobs actually available to former husband or what pay would be). Next, the husband contends that the tr…
-
Owen v. Owen, 867 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…CA 1998), the court held that expert testimony establishing the prevailing earnings level for a particular degree does not constitute evidence sufficient to impute that amount of income for child support purposes. Similarly, in Iglesias v. Iglesias, 711 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the court found insuf [*1224] ficient for purposes of imputed income evidence of the employment section of the newspaper where the husband resided, reflecting multiple jobs opening, noting there was nothing to indicate that any o…
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
- Stodtko v. Stodtko, 636 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)