WILLIAM GOLFIN, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Barlow v. Jilla Barlow, 224 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
  …ginal). Thus, we have held that bonus income must be included in the calculations of both child support and alimony when it is regular and continuous. See id. (citing Parry v. Parry, 933 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)); see also Vergara v. Vergara, 831 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“[Bjefore a trial court can include a bonus in calculating net income for child support purposes, the bonus must be regular and continuous.”). In this case, the trial court erred in relying on the 2013 bonus—“the last receiv…
• Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
  …s ability to pay alimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not including the Husband’s 2003 bonus as income because the Husband’s testimony supports the conclusion that the bonus was not regular and continuing. See Vergara v. Vergara, 831 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). However, on remand the trial court should include a portion of the bonus in the equitable distribution. The Husband received an approximately $25,000 net bonus shortly before the final hearing in February 2004 for work done…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
• Anderson v. State, 574 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1991)