CHRISTOPHER M. GOMEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MILDRED M. GOMEZ, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a dollar-for-dollar credit against child support obligations for social security disability benefits received by the child. The court held that under Florida Statutes § 61.30(11)(b), social security benefits received by a child should not be factored into child support calculations.
The trial court did not err in refusing to award the husband a dollar-for-dollar credit against his child support obligation for social security payments to the child. Under Florida Statutes § 61.30(11)(b), social security disability benefits received by a child should not be factored into the child support order calculation.
[1] Social security benefits received by a child as a result of a parent's disability should not be credited dollar-for-dollar against that parent's child support obligation…
[2] Florida Statutes section 61.30(11)(b) permits a court to adjust child support based on a child's independent income, excluding supplemental security income.
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“a court may adjust the minimum child support award based upon a consideration of the "[independent income of the child, not to include moneys received by a child from supplemental security income."”
Establishes the statutory basis for excluding social security benefits from child support calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a child receiving $452.00 per month in social security benefits as a result of the husband's disability. The husband sought a dollar-f…
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
STONE, C.J.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution.
The parties’ child receives $452.00 per month in social security benefits as a result of the husband’s disability. The trial court did not err, as asserted by the husband, by failing to award the husband a dollar for dollar credit against his child support obligation for the social security payment to the child. We note that the husband’s disability income is not reduced as a result of the social security payment to the child.
In reaching our decision, we rely on section 61.30(ll)(b),' Florida Statutes (1997), which provides that a court may adjust the minimum child support award based upon a consideration of the “[independent income of the child, not to include moneys received by a child from supplemental security income.” (Emphasis added) Although not argued here, this provision dictates that the social security disability benefits received by' the child should not be factored into the child support order that would otherwise comply with section 61.30. We note that the trial court did off-set the child’s supplemental income pro rata from the parties’ support obligations. However, the issue of whether to increase the husband’s obligation is not before us.
We recognize that this result conflicts with that in Williams v. Williams, 560 So. 2d 308, 310 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Williams, the First DCA relied on section 61.30(2)(a)8, Florida Statutes (1987) to conclude that social security benefits received as a result of the husband’s disability should be included when calculating the family gross income and then credited against the disabled parent’s support obligation. We note, however, that section 61.30(ll)(b) did not contain the restriction “not to include moneys received by a child from supplemental security income” at the time of the Williams decision. The statute was amended in 1997. As such, it appears that Williams was superceded by the 1997 amendment.
We also recognize that in Ricketts v. Ricketts, 593 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), this court upheld a child support award that credited the husband with social security payments paid directly to the custodial parent for the child. However, the facts supporting this court’s decision in Ricketts are not apparent in the brief opinion, and, in any event, that opinion was rendered prior to the 1997 amendment.
As to all other issues, we affirm pursuant to Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallace v. Dep't OF Revenue, 774 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…gnize that the Fourth District has adopted a different position and has held that “social security disability benefits” received by a child because of a father’s disability should not be factored into a child support calculation. See Gomez v. Gomez, 736 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Gomez additionally held that the obligor parent on whose behalf the benefits were paid was not entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit against the obligation calculated. Id. at 120. In support of this position, the Fourth Distric…
-
Sealander v. Sealander, 789 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…e Former Husband’s voluntary early retire- ■ ment was not a substantial change in circumstances.1 The Former Husband filed exceptions to the general master’s report; however, the trial court denied the exceptions after a hearing. In Gomez v. Gomez, 736 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), this Court affirmed the denial of a credit against the former husband’s child support obligation for social security benefits paid to the child as a result of the former husband’s disability. See id. at 120. In affirming, this C…
-
Loraine Clark Ford v. Ford, 816 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…included in gross income for the purpose of child support calculations. The statute does not differentiate between the different types of social security benefits available. The Fourth District initially took a contrary position in Gomez v. Gomez, 736 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and held that social security benefits received by a child because of a father’s disability should not be factored into child support obligations. Hence, it affirmed the denial of a credit against a former husband’s child suppor…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Lennon v. State, 560 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Barnett Ricketts, Jr. v. Ricketts, 593 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)