DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF WENDY HOPE, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH J. HINNERSCHIETZ, 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 Department of Revenue appeals a trial court's child support order, arguing that the court failed to consider all in-kind benefits received by the father from his business when calculating his imputed income. The Second District Court of Appeal agrees and reverses, holding that in-kind payments that reduce living expenses must be properly imputed in determining child support obligations.
The trial court failed to consider all in-kind benefits that reduced the father's living expenses and therefore failed to properly calculate his imputed income. The court must reverse and remand to allow the trial court to recalculate the father's imputed income by assigning specific dollar values to all in-kind benefits received from his business.
[1] In child support calculations, "reimbursed expenses or in kind payments" should be considered to the extent they reduce a party's living expenses.
[2] A trial court errs by failing to consider all in-kind benefits a party receives from their business that reduce their living expenses when calculating child support.
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“the court may consider "Reimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that they reduce living expenses." § 61.30(2)(a)13, Fla. Stat. (2002).”
Establishes the statutory basis for imputing in-kind benefits as income in 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 intelligenceKenneth Hinnerschietz owns an automobile collision repair business with gross receipts exceeding $300,000 annually. The hearing officer imputed only $…
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 Child Support Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
The Department of Revenue, on behalf of Wendy Hope (the mother), appeals the trial court’s order adopting the recommended order of the child support hearing officer which determined the current gross incomes of the parties to be used in calculating current and retroactive child support. We agree with the Department of Revenue that the trial court failed to consider all of the in kind benefits Kenneth Hinnerschietz (the father) received from his business and reverse.
Mr. Hinnerschietz owns his own automobile collision repair business. As stated by the hearing officer in the recommended order, the business has gross receipts of over $300,000 per year, but nets considerably less because the profits are put back into the business. In calculating the gross incomes of the parties, the hearing officer imputed income to Mr. Hinnerschietz as follows: $600 per month living expenses (which includes rent, utilities, and garbage pick up), and $300 per year for medical expenses. During the hearing, the Department of Revenue argued that Mr. Hin-nerschietz received benefits of at least $2,500 per month from his business including child care and medical expenses; rent; bills for cable, electric, garbage, and telephone; the use of company vehicles; and petty cash. Counsel for Mr. Hinnerschietz conceded that this was an in kind ease and that the value of any such benefits should be imputed. He admitted that a portion of Mr. Hinnerschietz’s rent, electric, and garbage bills, a payment on a credit card, a percentage of child care expenses, personal medical bills, and personal living expenses should be imputed.
In determining the parties’ income levels under the child support guidelines, the court may consider “Reimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that they reduce living expenses.” § 61.30(2)(a)13, Fla. Stat. (2002). After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court failed to consider all of the benefits Mr. Hinnerschietz received from his business which in turn reduced his living expenses. By his counsel’s own admission, there were in kind benefits received by Mr. Hinnerschietz that we conclude should have been imputed in the calculation of his gross income for pur poses of determining his child support obligation.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a hearing to determine child support based on a new computation of Mr. Hinnerschietz’s imputed income assigning specific dollar values to all the various benefits received by Mr. Hinnerschietz from his business and applying that total value to his gross income. See Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jones v. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. Mills, 62 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…id not include the value of the former husband’s business income or the value of in kind payments made on his behalf when it determined the former husband’s ability to pay, we must reverse the award of alimony. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA [*676] 2002); Jones v. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Smith v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 228, 228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). For the purposes of determining busine…
-
State v. Channon C. Price and John E. Price, 182 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ee Colston v. Green, 742 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (Father’s one-time signing bonus from professional football team was required to be included in "gross income” under, section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . See Dep't of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Father’s benefits from business which contributed to his living expenses required to be included as "gross income” under section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . While we can affirm a decision even if right for the wrong reason, we c…
-
G.S.P. v. K.B., 30 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…PTER S CORPORATION “In determining the parties’ income levels under the child support guidelines, the court may consider ‘[rjeimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that they reduce living expenses.’” Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting § 61.30(2)(a)(13), Fla. Stat. (2002))2; see also Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (approving the trial court’s decision to include as income benefits such as a company…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cozier v. Varry M. Cozier, 819 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Jones v. Dorinda L. Jones, 679 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)