CRAIG DANIEL, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDY BLACK MOATS, 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 father appeals an order modifying child support obligations in a paternity case. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred by refusing to consider the father's substantial student loan debt when increasing child support, by awarding attorney's fees without evidentiary support, and by denying a surname change request without explaining its reasoning.
The court reversed, holding that: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to consider student loan obligations simply because the father voluntarily changed careers, absent evidence the change was motivated by intent to reduce income; (2) attorney's fees were awarded without evidentiary support as to reasonableness; (3) the surname change request was denied without explanation of the child's best interest; and (4) visitation travel expenses must be reconsidered in light of student loan obligations.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to consider a parent's student loan obligations when determining child support modifications, absent a finding that the parent voluntarily…
[2] An award of attorney's fees requires evidence of the reasonableness of the hours and fees, not merely testimony of the amount paid.
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“We know of no law that requires one to be employed in a field consistent with his ability which earns the highest income. If so, many fields, perhaps teaching, would go unfilled.”
Establishes the principle that parents are not required to work in the highest-paying field and that financial obligations must be evaluated in context of legitimate career choices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile in high school in Georgia, Craig Daniel fathered a child with the mother. A Marion County Court determined Daniel was the father and ordered $16…
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 Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order modifying a Final Judgment of Paternity. We reverse.
While the parties were in high school in Georgia, the mother became pregnant by Craig Daniel. The child was born in Florida. A Marion County Court determined Craig Daniel to be the father and ordered him to pay $160 a month child support. The father graduated from Georgia Tech with a degree in Science of Building Construction and, although his career goal was in construction, obtained a law degree. His loans for his education at this point exceeded $90,000. There is no indication in the record that the father did not remain current with his child support payments during his entire education experience. After law school, Daniel, for a brief time, worked for a law firm and earned $58,000 per year, but subsequently sought and obtained a position as project engineer with H.C.B. Construction earning $45,000. He received more than the project engineer position normally paid because of his law degree. He accepted the job because he thought it would eventually permit him to advance in his field of choice and earn a higher income than he could in law. His student loan payments are $1,270.46 a month.
The trial court refused to consider the student loan obligation when determining the amount of child support increase because the father had voluntarily left his law position and entered the construction field. Because the court failed to find that the father made this change in order to reduce his salary and thus deprive his dependents of income, we find this error. We know of no law that requires one to be employed in a field consistent with his ability which earns the highest income. If so, many fields, perhaps teaching, would go unfilled.
We also find that there was no evidence in the record to support the court’s award of attorney’s fees to the mother. No one testified concerning attorney’s fees except the mother and she merely stated what she paid. There was no evidence as to the reasonableness of the hours or the fees. Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Wiley v. Wiley, 485 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We reverse the award of attorney’s fees.
On remand, the trial court should also reconsider its refusal to assign the child tax exemption to the father on the basis of Radin v. Commissioners, T.C. Memo 1987-348. This Tax Court Memorandum holds that the section 152(e) of the Internal Revenue Code which relates to “divorced or legally separated” persons does not apply to paternity situations.
The court refused to change the child’s surname to that of the father despite his request and despite the fact that the child still carries the mother’s maiden surname even though the mother is now married. Hence the child’s surname is different from both of the parents’. The court did so without explaining why this was in the child’s best interest. On remand, the court is instructed to enter a new order, explaining why a name change is or is not in the child’s best interest.
The court also required the father to pay all travel expenses related to the visitation of the child. The court did this without taking into account the father’s student loan obligation. The court should reconsider this issue taking such obligation into account.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brewer v. Solovsky, 945 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…. Competent evidence includes invoices, records and other information detailing the services provided as well as the testimony from the attorney in support of the fee. Fairdoth v. Bliss, 917 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Daniel v. Moats, 718 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Clark v. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 495 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In this case, while there was- evidence presented to the trial court in the form of appellee’s attorney retainer agreement and invoices for the services prov…
-
Faircloth v. Bliss, 917 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…cannot so consider them on review of the record. If the advocate wishes to establish a fact, he must provide sworn testimony through witnesses other than himself or a stipulation to which his opponent agrees. Id. at 1017; see also Daniel v. Moats, 718 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that evidence did not support award of attorney fees to mother in proceedings to modify fathers child support obligation; no one testified concerning attorney fees except mother, mother merely stated what she paid, and t…
-
McKAY v. Haikey, 860 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…aikey wanted his child to know his last name. He feared that McKay would probably remarry and change her name again. While concern that a child may not have the same surname as either parent appears to be valid best interest factor, Daniel v. Moats, 718 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the father’s concern in the instant case was merely speculative. Thus, both reasons given by Haikey were insufficient to prove that the name change was in the child’s best interest. The reason given by the trial court was also…
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
- Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Wiley v. Sharlene Marie Wiley, 485 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)