MARIA CRUZ HARBUS, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY BARRY HARBUS, 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.
Maria Cruz Harbus appealed a final dissolution order, challenging the trial court's imputation of income for child support calculation. The appellate court reversed on the income imputation issue, finding it unsupported by competent substantial evidence, but affirmed all other aspects of the dissolution order.
The court reversed the income imputation, finding it unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The imputed income of $48,000 annually exceeded what the record demonstrated regarding her occupational qualifications and the prevailing earnings level in the community. The case was remanded to recalculate child support arrearages based on income imputation supported by record evidence.
[1] Income may be imputed to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent in dissolution of marriage proceedings, absent physical or mental incapacity or other circumstan…
[2] A trial court may impute income to a supporting spouse based on their earning capacity, not just their current income, when determining alimony, child support, and attorn…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A court's imputation of income must be supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that income imputation must have evidentiary support
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 wife testified she was earning approximately $200 per month selling cosmetics at the time of the temporary relief hearing. Her prior work h…
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 Physical Or Mental Incapacity cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The former wife appeals a final order of dissolution. She raises four issues. We reverse solely on the issue of the trial court’s imputation of income to the former wife. We affirm in all other respects.
A court’s imputation of income must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), [i]ncome 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 ...
The court is required to set forth the amount and source of the imputed income. Viscito v. Menditto, 644 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). If the court fads to do so, the case must be reversed and remanded for specific findings of fact. Artuso, 843 So. 2d at 945.
In this case, the wife testified at the temporary relief hearing that she was currently earning a couple of hundred dollars a month selling cosmetics. Previously, she had earned approximately $33,000 annually working for Minolta in Boca Ra-ton and before that $60,000 to $70,000 annually working for Minolta in New Jersey. She had been offered two positions in Boston making approximately $60,000— $70,000, but had no job offers locally.
The trial court stated on the record, “I mean she can get a job. All her testimony is the job offers that she has here if she wants to go up there she can. The job she left paid 79, right?” The court then imputed income of $4,000 a month or $48,000 a year to the former wife. Subsequently, the court awarded child support arrearag-es based upon the income imputation in the temporary relief order. While the court clearly articulated the amount of income to be imputed, it was an amount unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Based on the testimony, the only local job the former wife ever had paid $33,000 per year. There is no evidence of her occupational qualifications or earnings level in the prevailing job market in the community. The court therefore erred when it imputed income in excess of the amount supported by the record.
We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand the case to the trial court to recalculate the child support arrearage, if any, based upon an imputation of income supported by the record evidence. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dena Stern v. Chovnick, 914 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…income is being imputed to her during her rehabilitation period, in which she is expected to move into a new home and secure permanent employment. A court’s imputation of income must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Harbus v. Harbus, 874 So. 2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The wife herself testified that she had a current job opportunity of $40,000, and the husband’s expert also testified to current available jobs of comparable salary. Given the immediate availability of employment, the cour…
-
Efrem Harrell v. Harrell, 947 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ere made so as to permit the imputation of such income. Because we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of the final order without findings of fact as to these and related matters, we reverse and remand for that purpose. See Harbus v. Harbus, 874 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“If the trial court fails to do so, the case must be reversed and remanded for specific findings of fact.”); Tarnawski v. Tarnawski, 851 So. 2d 239, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (same); Bimonte v. Martin-Bimonte, 679 So. 2d 18,…
-
Xernona Pinnock v. Whyte, 209 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…with support payments.’ ” Id. at 941 (quoting Robertson v. Bretthauer, 712 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). Additionally, we note that a court's imputation of income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Harbus v. Harbus, 874 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The trial court "is required to set forth the amount and source of the imputed income. If the court fails to do so, the case must be reversed and remanded for specific findings of fact.” Id. at 1231.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- F.W.M. v. State, 644 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)