DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF FLORENCE L. MONEYHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGIL K. MONEYHAM, 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 Florida Department of Revenue, on behalf of Florence L. Moneyham, appealed an administrative order setting child support obligations for Virgil K. Moneyham. The court reversed the ALJ's findings as unsupported by evidence and in violation of the Florida child support guidelines statute, remanding for recalculation using the proper statutory formula.
The ALJ's findings determining both current and retroactive child support are not supported by evidence and violate section 61.30, Florida Statutes. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the ALJ to properly calculate net income using the statutory formula, prepare a child support guidelines worksheet, and provide written findings for any adjustments beyond the guideline amount.
[1] A child support order must be supported by evidence in the record and comply with statutory provisions governing child support calculations.
[2] A child support guidelines worksheet must be prepared after determining gross income and allowable deductions to arrive at net income.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount which varies more than 5 percent from such guideline amount only upon a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.”
Establishes the requirement for written findings when deviating from statutory child support guidelines
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 involved a dispute over child support obligations where an Administrative Law Judge issued a final order determining both current and retroac…
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 Arrearage Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Revenue, acting on behalf of Florence L. Moneyham, appeals a final administrative order determining the child support obligations of Virgil K. Moneyham, appellee. We agree with the Department that the findings in the order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determining both current and retroactive child support are not supported by evidence in the record and violate provisions of section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2005). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On remand, the ALJ shall prepare a child support guidelines worksheet after determining appellee’s gross income in accordance with section 61.30(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), and the allowable deductions pursuant to section 61.30(3), in order to arrive at appellee’s net income for purposes of the guidelines schedule. See § 61.30(6).
While the ALJ is allowed to adjust child support based upon the considerations set forth in section 61.30(ll)(a), if such adjustments are made, the ALJ shall set forth findings explaining the use of these considerations. See § 61.30(l)(a) (“The trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount which varies more than 5 percent from such guideline amount only upon a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.”).
Further, while the ALJ may adjust the child support arrearage pursuant to section 61.30(17)(b), the ALJ can do so only after finding that the “actual payments made by the noncustodial parent” were “for the benefit of the child.” See, e.g., Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 871-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(holding fact-finder required to make specific findings of fact in applying section 61.30, which provides the statutory formula used to determine child support obligation).
On remand, the ALJ is ordered “to determine the parties’ current financial situation and recalculate their child support obligations on a worksheet using current financial information and applying the child support guidelines.” Long v. Long, 916 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KAHN, C.J.; ERVIN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashton J. Finch v. Dep't OF Revenue, 65 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…h’s current income. See Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Calero v. Calero, 996 So. 2d 244, 245-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Soto v. Soto, 974 So. 2d 403, 403-05 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Moneyham v. Moneyham, 931 So. 2d 1048, 1048-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (2010). In addition, the ALJ erred in using Finch’s current monthly income to compute the retroactive support obligation. The use of current income is permissible when the obligor fail…
Authorities Cited
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Abel Bert Crum v. State, 916 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Long v. Long, 916 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)