HORACIO A. RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ, 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 Florida family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal vacated the trial court's determination of the husband's income at $80,000 per year, finding no evidentiary support for the imputation or actual receipt of that amount. The court remanded for reconsideration of income-dependent awards including alimony and child support, while affirming the dissolution of marriage and custody provisions.
The appellate court held that no evidence supported the trial judge's determination of the husband's income at $80,000 per year under either imputation or actual receipt theories. Accordingly, the court vacated the permanent periodic alimony, child support, and lump sum alimony awards, which all depend on a proper income determination, and remanded for reconsideration of the husband's income and related financial awards. The court affirmed the dissolution of marriage and custody/visitation provisions.
[1] A trial court's determination of a party's income for purposes of alimony and child support must be supported by evidence, either through imputation of income or as a fin…
[2] Awards of permanent periodic alimony and child support, which are directly dependent on a party's income, must be vacated and remanded for reconsideration when the determ…
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“We find no evidence to support the trial judge's determination fixing the husband's income at $80,000 per year, either under imputation of income principles... or as a conclusion that the husband was actually receiving that amount.”
Establishes the core holding that the income determination lacked evidentiary support under either theory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoracio A. Rodriguez and Maria Elena Rodriguez were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial judge fixed the husband's income at $80…
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 Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
We find no evidence to support the trial judge’s determination fixing the husband’s income at $80,000 per year, either under imputation of income principles, see Brown v. Cannady-Brown, 954 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Roca v. Roca, 937 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Swain v. Swain, 932 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Garone v. Goller, 878 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see also Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), or as a conclusion that the husband was actually receiving that amount. See Narcis v. Narcis, 707 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232, 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(“[T]he ability to request financial assistance from [the husband’s] ... family is an irrelevant justification for this alimony award.”).
The financial provisions of the final judgment of dissolution under review, including permanent periodic alimony, and the amount of child support,1 both of which are directly dependent upon a proper determination of the husband’s income, and the award of lump sum alimony,2 which is indirectly so and is, in any case, intertwined with those determinations, are therefore vacated and the cause is remanded for reconsideration of the husband’s income and of the awards which flow from that ruling.3 See Roca, 937 So. 2d at 739 (“decision regarding the imputed income requires reconsideration of the alimony [and] child support ... awards”); Hall v. Hall, 721 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(remand for award of permanent periodic alimony renders it necessary for trial court to reexamine other financial aspects of final judgment including lump sum alimony and the equitable distribution scheme).
The portions of the judgment dissolving the marriage and granting primary residence of the parties child to the mother and visitation to the father are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.
. We do find that the husband is not entitled to a section 61.30(1 l)(b) credit because his counsel stipulated below that the agreed visitation amounted to less than the 146 overnights (40 percent) provided by the statute. Cf. Largaespada v. Largaespada, 920 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
. The trial judge awarded the husband’s interest in the marital home, the parties' only valuable asset, to the wife as lump sum alimony. The propriety of this award may be heavily impacted by the rulings after remand. (The husband’s attorney himself suggested such an award below, on the supposition that there would be at most nominal periodic alimony.) Compare Rosario v. Rosario, 945 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(reversing award of marital home), Perez v. Perez, 882 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(same), Jessee v. Jessee, 839 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(same), and Safferstone v. Safferstone, 501 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(same), with Bressler v. Bressler, 914 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(upholding award of marital home), Russell v. Russell, 890 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(same), Manrique v. Manrique, 786 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(same), and Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(same).
. The court may take additional evidence, and may make additional or different awards, including equitable distribution, if appropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nd’s net income “is much greater than” the trial court’s finding of $4500. However, the Wife’s counsel does not suggest on appeal what finding the trial court should have made as to the amount of the Husband’s net income. In Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d 436, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), the Third District reversed a determination that the [*682] husband’s income was $80,000 when the evidence failed to support an imputation of income or that the husband actually earned that amount. The court remanded for the…
-
Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…3d DCA 2008); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 868 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). . The financial statement includes $235 for children's expenses. . On remand, it is within the trial court's discretion to consider additional evidence. See Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d 436, 437 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). This Court expresses no opinion as to whether the evidence on remand will support a determination of imputed additional income that is greater than, less than, or equal to the $3000 figure. . The record establishes tha…
-
Ponce v. Carola P. Ponce, 997 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…n account of the absence of statutory findings. We do, of course, reserve the right to reverse on account of an absence of findings ... if the absence of the statutory findings frustrates this court’s appellate review.”); cf. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (reversing financial provisions of final judgment of dissolution where there was no evidence to support the trial court’s determination of former husband’s income). In this case, the trial court made no findings to support its de…
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 (18 total)
- Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Brown v. Cannady-Brown, 954 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Rosario v. Rosario, 945 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Renato Bruno Squindo v. Osuna-Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Swain v. Swain, 932 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Jessee v. Jessee, 839 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Perez v. Perez, 882 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Narcis v. Narcis, 707 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Soll v. Dayl M. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Safferstone v. Safferstone, 501 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)