JOHNNY LEE MARTINEZ, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BONITA KAY MARTINEZ, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of permanent alimony but reversed and remanded two issues: the calculation of child support obligations failed to account for federal income taxes on the alimony award, and uncovered medical expenses should have been allocated based on the parties' respective incomes rather than equally shared.
The trial court erred in calculating child support obligations by failing to reduce Ms. Martinez's income to reflect federal income taxes paid on the alimony award. Additionally, uncovered medical expenses should have been allocated based on the parties' respective incomes and ability to pay, not split equally.
[1] Child support calculations must account for income taxes payable on alimony awards.
[2] Uncovered medical expenses for children, when ordered separately from basic child support, must be allocated based on each party's respective income.
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“the couple's respective child support obligations must be recalculated to reflect the amount her income will be reduced by federal income taxes paid on the alimony award”
Establishes that child support calculations must account for income taxes owed on alimony income
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnny Lee Martinez and Bonita Kay Martinez were married for twenty-three years before Mr. Martinez filed for divorce in 1997. The trial court delayed…
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 Income Taxes cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Johnny Lee Martinez appeals and Bonita Kay Martinez cross-appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find merit in only two issues raised by Ms. Martinez and conceded by Mr. Martinez. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
This couple was married for twenty-three years before Mr. Martinez filed for divorce in 1997. The trial court’s task was complicated by the couple’s decision to delay a final hearing on the matter until 2003. The final judgment was not entered until May 2004. When the couple separated, they had four minor children. Only one child was still a minor when the judgment was entered, and that child will soon be an adult.
The trial court awarded Ms. Martinez permanent alimony in the amount of $2000 per month. The trial court then calculated the couple’s respective child support obligations, using $3156 as Ms. Martinez’s net income. This amount includes the award of permanent alimony, but it fails to reduce the amount to reflect the income taxes that she must pay on this alimony. Mr. Martinez concedes that this calculation is erroneous. On remand, the couple’s respective child support obligations must be recalculated to reflect the amount her income will be reduced by federal income taxes paid on the alimony award. See § 61.30(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003); Weiser v. Weiser, 782 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Ms. Martinez also argues that the trial court erred in requiring the couple to equally share the child’s uncovered medical expenses. Section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that the court shall add uncovered medical expenses to the basic child support obligation unless these expenses “have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.” The record reflects that these expenses were not included in the basic child support amount. Because they were ordered separately, these expenses should have been awarded based on the parties’ respective incomes. See Cooper v. Cooper, 760 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that uncovered medical expenses of children must be paid by either or both parties based on a factual determination of each party’s ability to pay); see also Forrest v. Ron, 821 So. 2d 1163, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Mr. Martinez’s income is significantly higher than Ms. Martinez’s. On remand, after the trial court recalculates the child support obligations, it should determine each party’s ability to pay the uncovered medical expenses and order payment based on the same percentage as the parties’ income.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…eparately paid on a percentage basis. It is error for the court to equally divide the noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses when the court arrives at an unequal percentage share of child support. See Martinez v. Martinez, 911 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Salazar v. Salazar, 976 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Forrest v. Ron, 821 So. 2d 1168, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We are unable to determine whether the court’s award of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription me…
-
Alich v. Clapp, 926 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ursed medical expenses. See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 714 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). On remand, the trial court should reconsider the obligation to pay unreimbursed medical expenses based on the parties’ current incomes. See Martinez v. Martinez, 911 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cooper v. Cooper, 760 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Finally, as to the issue of visitation, we reverse and remand with directions that a visitation schedule be implemented in keeping with the standard visitation sch…
-
Elisia R. Tummings v. Francois, 82 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…3d 1238, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“If such noncovered expenses are not factored into the child support guidelines calculation, ... responsibility for the expenses should be apportioned based on the parties’ relative incomes.”); Martinez v. Martinez, 911 So. 2d 288, 289-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[Tjhese [noncovered medical] expenses should have been awarded based on the parties’ respective incomes.... On remand, after the trial court recalculates the child support obligations, it should determine each party’s ab…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooper v. Cooper, 760 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Weiser v. Weiser, 782 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Caryn Heidi Forrest v. Ami RON, 821 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)