KATHLEEN J. KUNTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL KUNTZ, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's final judgment of dissolution, including decisions on relocation, tax exemption allocation, and imputation of income due to underemployment.
The trial court denied a former spouse's request to relocate with the children, allocated the federal tax exemption for the children, and found the fo…
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 Imputation Of Income For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the thoughtful final judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court.
On the relocation issue, section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2000) “imposes an intensely fact specific framework on the relocation decision, where the trial judge may base a decision on what is best for the child, even though a result may not be best for the primary residential parent seeking to relocate.” Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The trial judge extensively addressed the six factors enumerated in section 61.13(2)(d)l.-6. in his oral ruling and in the written final judgment. As we concluded in Flint, “[t]he standards of appellate review prevent us from reweighing the evidence and making the value judgments that are appropriate for the trial judge. Because there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings concerning the factors set forth in section 61.13(2)(d)1.-6., we must affirm the decision denying relocation.” 744 So. 2d at 1218-19 (citations omitted).
We also affirm the trial court’s allocation between the parents of the federal tax exemption for the children. See § 61.30(11)(a)8., Fla. Stat. (2000); Robertson v. Bretthauer, 712 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Finally, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the former wife was “underemployed.” Imputation of income for the purpose of the child support guidelines is appropriate where the court finds that a parent is underemployed and such “underemployment is found to be voluntary on that parent’s part, absent physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control.” § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). There was evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the former wife was underemployed, in that she could be employed full-time earning $19.00 an hour as opposed to working forty per diem hours per week.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cecemski v. Ashly Ann Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ential parent. 5. Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both parties. 6. Whether the move is in the best interests of the child. See Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748, 749-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Kuntz v. Kuntz, 780 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Under section 61.13(2)(d), there is no presumption in favor of, or against, relocation. Further, although the record must reflect that the trial court considered the statutory factors, section 61.13(2)(d) does not require…
-
Jessyca Rossman v. Gino J. Profera, 67 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…) (reversing an order granting a relocation request because “[a]ny evidence regarding the benefits of relocation related to the Mother and her new husband” and there was no evidence that relocation would be good for the minor child); Kuntz v. Kuntz, 780 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[The relocation statute] imposes an intensely fact specific framework on the relocation decision, where the trial judge may base a decision on what is best for the child, even though a result may not be best for the prima…
-
Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t consulting father until shortly before the move. The trial court’s decision is based on the best interests of the child, even if the result is not in the best interests of the primary residential parent who is seeking to relocate. Kuntz v. Kuntz, 780 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The “desirability of maintaining continuity” may be a factor in deciding the child’s best interests. See, e.g., § 61.13(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2004). The trauma of separating from the primary residential parent may be less than the…
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
- Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Robertson v. Bretthauer, 712 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)