STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY AND ON BEHALF OF CHERYL STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS E. STANLEY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to decrease Dennis E. Stanley's child support obligation, holding that the trial court properly declined to impute income to him based on his presumed business ability where actual business opportunities did not support such imputation.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that income should not be imputed. Where a person cannot find employment commanding the salary earned previously and there is no evidence of actual ability to earn more coupled with deliberate refusal to work at a higher earning capacity, imputation of income is not justified and would be based on speculation rather than fact.
[1] A trial court may impute income for child support purposes based on a parent's ability to obtain work, but must consider actual business opportunities and prevailing earn…
[2] Imputation of income for child support is factually untenable when evidence establishes that actual business opportunities do not meet previously presumed levels of activ…
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“[W]here the person truly cannot find employment that will command the salary earned in the previous job, it would be futile to design support payments based upon imaginary income from unattainable employment. The statute requires consideration of not only recent work history, but also occupational qualifications and prevailing earnings.”
Establishes the standard that income imputation must be based on actual, attainable employment opportunities, not speculation or imaginary income.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn two previous orders, income was imputed to Dennis E. Stanley based on his presumed ability to obtain work in his business. At the modification hear…
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 Underemployment cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
The trial court decreased the amount of child support paid by Appellee, citing various independent substantial changes in circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on one of the grounds:
In two previous orders, income was imputed to Dennis E. Stanley based on his presumed ability to obtain work in his business. Extensive testimony at this hearing established that actual business opportunities do not meet the previously presumed levels of activity, thus rendering further imputation of income factually untenable.
We do not reach the other reasons relied on by the trial court,
The trial court properly considered whether Appellee was underemployed and if income should be imputed to him for purposes of child support. See section 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999); Brock v. Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(trial court should consider factors of section 61.30 when imputing income on orders modifying child support).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that income should not be imputed. In Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497, 498-99 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the court stated:
[WJhere the person truly cannot find employment that will command the salary earned in the previous job, it would be futile to design support payments based upon imaginary income from unattainable employment. The statute requires consideration of not only recent work history, but also occupational qualifications and prevailing earnings.
In Hogle v. Hogle, 535 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), this court indicated that, before imputation of income could occur, there must be a finding that there is an actual ability to earn more than is currently being earned and that there is a deliberate refusal to work at a higher earning capacity. There is no evidence in the instant case that would have enabled the trial judge to make those findings. (Emphasis added).
As in Ensley, the trial court found that imputation of income was not justified by the facts. See also Aarts v. Aarts, 636 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(trial court should not base support payments on speculation or conjecture regarding an uncertain future).
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ensley v. Ensley, 578 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Hogle v. Hogle, 535 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Brock v. Voncile Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Aarts v. Aarts, 636 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)