SCOTT DONALD TOWN, APPELLANT,
v.
VALERIE LEIGH GUNST TOWN, 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 family law appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's imputation of income to the former husband but reversed and remanded regarding the retroactive increase in child support and the distribution of marital assets, requiring the trial court to provide written findings of asset valuations and clarify the appropriate child support calculation and retroactive period.
The court affirmed the imputation of income to the former husband as supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the child support decision, requiring the trial court to determine whether an increase is appropriate with written findings explaining any deviation from guidelines, with retroactive increase limited to September 23, 1999 or later. The court also reversed and remanded the asset distribution due to lack of written findings identifying and valuing significant assets.
[1] A trial court is justified in imputing income to a party who voluntarily limits their income, supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court must make written findings explaining why a deviation from child support guidelines is appropriate.
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“Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Former Husband voluntarily limited his income, and the trial court was justified in imputing income to the Former Husband pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes.”
Establishes the standard for imputing income when a party voluntarily limits earnings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband and wife had six children, four of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution judgment. The former wife sought an increase in …
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 Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal of a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, Former Husband appeals the trial court’s retroactive increase in child support, the increase in child support above the child support guidelines, imputing income to the Former Husband, and the distribution of all the couple’s major assets to Former Wife. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
We affirm the trial court’s imputing income to the Former Husband. Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Former Husband voluntarily limited his income, and the trial court was justified in imputing income to Former Husband pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
However, we reverse and remand to the trial court to determine the amount of child support to be awarded to the Former Wife. The trial court must determine whether an increase in child support is appropriate, and whether any increase will be retroactive.' If an increase in child support is awarded, the trial court must make written findings stating why a deviation from the child support guidelines is appropriate, as required by section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2000). Any retroactive increase in child support can accrue no earlier than September 23, 1999, when Former Wife first requested an increase in child support. See Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court shall also specify the date any retroactive increase in child support terminates, and the amount of child support awarded prospectively from the date of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, subject to recalculation upon each of the four remaining minor children reaching majority.1
We do not decide whether the trial court erred in awarding all major assets to Former Wife; however, we reverse and remand the distribution to the trial court because of its failure to make written findings of the value of the various assets distributed. See § 61.075(3)(b) (in a contested dissolution proceeding, the distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include, among other things, specific written findings of the identification of marital assets, including individual valuation of significant assets). If necessary, the trial court may take additional evidence to make findings to support its determination. Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. . The parties have six children, only four of whom were minors at the time the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was entered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…r does it identify or value all the marital assets and liabilities. As this court has held, section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the final judgment to contain sufficient findings regarding assets and liabilities. See, e.g., Town v. Town, 801 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“We do not decide whether the trial court erred in awarding all major assets to Former Wife; however, we reverse and remand the distribution to the trial court because of its failure to make written findings of the value of…
-
Peiman v. Peiman, 829 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…port in an amount which varies more than five percent from the guideline amount only upon a written finding, or a specific finding on the record, explaining why ordering payment of the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Town v. Town, 801 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Johnson v. Johnson, 761 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Gomez v. Gomez, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Fisher v. Fisher, 722 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In this case, the court imputed a $65,000 annual income to the Fo…
-
McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 835 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ursuant to either scenario contemplated in sections 61.30(ll)(a)10. or 61.30(ll)(b). Thus, we reverse the trial court’s retroactive award of increased child support and remand for a recalculation of the retroactive period of the award. Town v. Town, 801 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that a retroactive increase in child support could not accrue earlier than the date the former wife first requested an increase in child support); McDowell v. McDowell, 770 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCÁ 2000) (holding that i…
Authorities Cited
- Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)