TIMOTHY J. BEAL, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN T. BEAL, K/N/A KAREN N. THOMPSON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant and Appellee were formerly husband and wife. Their marriage was dissolved in 1994, and Appellant was ordered to pay child support based upon net income of $5,912 per month. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to modify and reduce the amount of child support. He alleged a signif icant decrease in income from his business, a bar known as “Tim’bers”, wholly owned by him. Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying him relief, which was based upon imputation of income and the availability of assets sufficient to generate significant income. We affirm.
While we disapprove of the amount of income imputed to Appellant, we nevertheless find that the trial court correctly found that Appellant continued to have sufficient assets and actual income to pay the amount of child support previously ordered. In particular, the trial court noted Appellant’s ownership of an unencumbered waterfront beach home, having a fair market value of $350,000.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…quarely held in Pryor, a claimed sentencing error cannot be raised on appeal where “it was not properly preserved for review and does not [*752] show fundamental error on the part of the sentencing court.” 704 So. 2d at 217; see also Perry v. State, 714 So. 2d 568, (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (same); Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (same).6 In this case, the defendant had a total of thirty days in which to file a Rule 3.800(b) motion to correct the sentencing error. This means that, beginning on the eighth day after…
-
Colette O. deLABRY v. David J. Sales, 134 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…693 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Cimitier v. Cimitier, 579 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)). “The trial court must look at all the assets available to the parent to determine the parent’s ability to pay.” Id. See also Beal v. Beal, 714 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (affirming denial of former husband’s petition to reduce his child support premised on reduced income because “the trial court correctly found that [the husband] continued to have sufficient assets and actual income to pay t…