BRUCE DEBACHER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA DEBACHER, 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 child support appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to the former wife when calculating child support. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of income attributable to each party and recalculate child support pursuant to section 61.30's voluntary unemployment provisions.
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to the former wife. Under section 61.30, income must be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such unemployment is found to be voluntary, unless the parent has a physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances beyond their control.
[1] Income shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such employment or underemployment is found to be voluntary, absent physical or mental incapacity or…
[2] In cases of voluntary unemployment or underemployment, a parent's employment potential and probable earnings level shall be determined based upon his or her recent work h…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Income on a monthly basis shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such employment or underemployment is found to be voluntary on that parent's part, absent physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control.”
States the statutory requirement for income imputation in child support cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a child support dispute between Bruce DeBacher (appellant) and Maria DeBacher (appellee). The trial court determined a child support…
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
PER CURIAM.
Of all the issues raised, we find that the trial court abused its discretion only when it failed to impute income to the former wife in determining its child support award. The child support guidelines, section 61.30, specifically provide in pertinent part that:
Income on a monthly basis shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such employment or underemployment is found to be voluntary on that parent’s part, absent physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control. In the event of such voluntary unemployment or underemployment, the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community[J (emphasis added).
§ 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001). Accordingly, that portion of the trial court’s order is remanded for findings concerning the amount of income attributable to each party and for recalculation of the child support award pursuant to section 61.30. See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Hennessey, 812 So. 2d 442, 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(holding that where mother was voluntarily unemployed, income was imputable to her for purposes of child support obligation); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“For purposes of child support, the trial court must impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent unless the lack of employment is the result of the spouse’s physical incapacity or other circumstances beyond the parent’s control.” (emphasis in original)). In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hentze v. Cherolyn Janel Denys, 88 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…improperly modified child support when it failed to impute income to the former wife. The standard of review for a trial court’s decision of whether to impute income in determining a child support award is abuse of discretion. DeBacher v. DeBacher, 867 So. 2d 404, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “[mjonthly income shall be imputed to an ... underemployed parent if such ... underemployment is found by the court to be voluntary on that parent’s part.”1 (Empha…
Authorities Cited
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Michol M. Hennessey, 812 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)