RAUL VERGARA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNETTE E. VERGARA, 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 post-dissolution child support modification case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's refusal to modify the visitation schedule but reversed the child support modification because the trial court improperly included business expense reimbursements and a contingent bonus in calculating the former husband's income.
Business expense reimbursements are not income and should not be included in child support calculations when the party has no expense account and is reimbursed only for actual expenses incurred. Additionally, a bonus must be regular and continuous to be included in net income calculations for child support purposes; a contingent bonus based on sales quotas does not meet this requirement.
[1] Reimbursements for business expenses that are not an expense account and are for expenses actually incurred do not constitute income for child support purposes.
[2] A contingent bonus based on sales quotas is not considered regular and continuous income for child support calculations.
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“Reimbursements for business expenses are not income and should not be included in calculations for child support purposes. Because the former husband does not have an expense account and because he is reimbursed for expenses he actually incurs, these amounts do not represent income.”
Establishes the legal principle that business expense reimbursements are not includable income for 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 intelligenceAfter both parties filed petitions to modify visitation and child support in a dissolution case, the trial court held a hearing. The trial court refus…
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 Modification Of Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raul Vergara (“former husband”) appeals from a post-dissolution order which determined custody and child support. After both parties filed petitions to modify visitation and child support, the trial court, after a hearing, refused to alter the visitation schedule but modified child support. We affirm the ruling on visitation and we reverse the support ruling.
In modifying child support, the trial court held that the former husband’s reimbursements for business expenses were income. Additionally, the trial court determined that the former husband’s income would include a contingent bonus. This bonus would be based upon an increase in sales and was not a guaranteed bonus. In order to include the bonus, the trial court assumed an increase from two prior years’ bonuses and then extrapolated the amount of the purported future bonus. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court modified child support upward.
Reimbursements for business expenses are not income and should not be included in calculations for child support purposes. Because the former husband does not have an expense account and because he is reimbursed for expenses he actually incurs, these amounts do not represent income. Therefore, the trial court erred in determining the expenses as income, for child support purposes. See Lombardi v. Lombardi 673 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Also, before a trial court can include a bonus in calculating net income for child support purposes, the bonus must be regular and continuous. See Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Joseph v. Joseph, 681 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Here, the bonus is contingent upon sales quotas set by his employer. Since the former husband’s bonuses are neither regular nor continuing, the trial court erred in including a bonus in its calculation. See Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d at 679. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the child support award. In all other respects, the order below is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
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
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Joseph v. Joseph, 681 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Renato L. Lombardi v. Lombardi, 673 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)