EDDIE R. CONNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
DENISE CONNELL, 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.
In this child support modification case, Eddie Connell appealed a trial court's decision to impute income of $55,000 annually for calculating his child support obligation. The appellate court affirmed the finding of voluntary underemployment but reversed the income imputation amount, holding that the trial court's reliance solely on Connell's exceptional 1994 income was not supported by the evidence and remanded for recalculation based on a lower imputed income.
The trial court correctly determined that Connell was voluntarily underemployed, justifying income imputation for child support. However, the $55,000 annual income imputation was erroneous because it relied solely on Connell's exceptional 1994 welder income without considering his employment potential based on recent work history and occupational qualifications. The maximum imputed income supported by evidence is 2,000 hours at $12 per hour, yielding $2,000 monthly gross income.
[1] A trial court may impute income to a party for child support purposes when that party is found to be voluntarily underemployed.
[2] When imputing income due to underemployment, a court must base the imputed amount on the individual's recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing ear…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 could only impute a level of income supported by the evidence concerning the "employment potential and probable earnings level of [Mr. Connell] ... based upon his ... recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community." § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995)”
Establishes the statutory standard for income imputation in child support cases requiring consideration of multiple factors beyond past income.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Connell earned approximately $45,000 annually as a welder when the parties divorced in May 1992, including significant overtime. He lost this jo…
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 Employment Potential cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Eddie R. Connell appeals a final judgment of modification in this dissolution proceeding. We affirm all aspects of the final judgment, except the amount of income imputed to Mr. Connell for purposes of child support.
In May 1992, when the Connells were divorced, Mr. Connell was earning approximately $45,000 per annum as a welder at GC Service Company, Inc. This income was exceptional for a welder, and included significant overtime. In January 1994, Mr. Connell lost this job, apparently due to off-the-job misconduct. Thereafter, he obtained several jobs paying between $8 and $14 an hour. In April 1995, Mr. Connell started his own lawn care service. In 1996, he earned less than $1,100 per month from this business venture.
Mr. Connell filed a petition for downward modification of his child support obligation in September 1996. Mrs. Connell subsequently filed a counter-petition, requesting an upward modification of Mr. Connell’s child support obligations. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Mr. Connell’s petition and granted Mrs. Connell’s request for an upward modification.
The trial court found Mr. Connell to be underemployed and imputed income equivalent to $55,000 per annum. The $55,000 was based on an extrapolation from Mr. Connell’s reported income for his last month of work at GC Service in January 1994. This resulted in a monthly child support obligation of $1,394. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Mr. Connell was “underemployed” for the purposes of section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), and that such underemployment was “voluntary.” The trial court, however, could only impute a level of income supported by the evidence concerning the “employment potential and probable earnings level of [Mr. Connell] ... based upon his ... recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community.” § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); cf. Robinson v. Robinson, 713 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (court in imputing income must consider not only recent work history, but also occupational qualifications and prevailing earnings); Cushman v. Cushman, 585 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (imputing income for purposes of alimony based on capability to earn more by use of best efforts).
In this ease, the trial court should not have utilized Mr. Connell’s monthly income for January 1994 as the sole basis for imputing annual income in 1996. See, e.g., Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (where person cannot find employment that will command salary earned in previous job, futile to design support payments based upon imaginary income from unattainable employment).
From a review of the entire record, we conclude that the maximum annual imputed income supported by the evidence would be 2000 hours at $12 per hour, resulting in a monthly gross income of $2,000. On remand, we instruct the trial court to recalculate the child support obligation at this maximum level from the date of the petition in September 1996, unless the evidence on remand establishes that Mr. Connell has actually earned a greater amount during a portion of the period since September 1996.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stavros Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…, 578 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In any event, the trial court may only impute a level of income supported by the evidence of employment potential and probable earnings based on history, qualifications, and prevailing wages. Connell v. Connell, 718 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We recognize that the trial court may consider a party’s attempt to arrange his other finances to avoid paying a spouse alimony or child support. Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Where a party…
-
Stebbins v. Stebbins, 754 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…her expert witness that the Former Husband is voluntarily unemployed and the Court must impute a[n] income to the Former Husband based on his most recent work history, his occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings. See Connell v. Connell, 718 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Evidence presented by the Former Wife’s expert demonstrates that the Former Husband should be currently employed at an annual salary of $65,000.00, which is his approximate former salary. An annual salary of $65,000.00 should be…
-
Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…90 So. 2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court’s imputation of income for the purpose of determining spousal support must be based on substantial, competent evidence. Gruber v. Gruber, 857 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Connell v. Connell, 718 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Brown v. Brown, 784 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Specific findings of fact must support the imputation decision. Zubkin v. Zubkin, 823 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because of a downturn in the insurance industry,…
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
- Desilets v. Desilets, 377 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Earle Cushman v. Cushman, 585 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 713 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)