SUSAN DREW, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS DREW, 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.
Wife appeals from amended final judgment in dissolution of marriage, challenging trial court's exclusion of husband's bonus income from calculations for alimony and child support. The appellate court reverses, holding that bonuses must be considered when regular and continuous, even if not guaranteed.
Yes. Trial courts must consider bonuses in calculating income for child support and alimony when the bonuses are regular and continuous, regardless of whether they are guaranteed or fixed. The fact that bonuses are discretionary and profit-dependent does not justify their exclusion when there is a nine-year history of receipt.
[1] Trial courts must consider bonuses when calculating a spouse's income for purposes of child support.
[2] Trial courts must consider all sources of income available to either party when computing an award of alimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when a trial court calculates income for the purpose of awarding child support or alimony, it may not exclude from consideration bonuses that are regular and continuous”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for inclusion of bonus income in support calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband received bonus payments each year for nine years, with the last eight bonuses exceeding $25,000. The bonuses were paid at the employer's discr…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the wife argues that the trial court erred in excluding the husband’s annual bonus income in its calculation of the husband’s income for purposes of alimony and child support. Because we agree that the trial court erred in not taking the husband’s bonuses into account in determining his income, we reverse.
Section 61.30(2), Florida Statutes (2007), requires trial courts to consider bonuses in calculating a spouse’s income for purposes of child support, and section 61.08(2)(g) requires trial courts to consider “[a]ll sources of income available to either party” in computing an award of alimony. Thus, we have held that when a trial court calculates income for the purpose of awarding child support or alimony, it may not exclude from consideration bonuses that are regular and continuous. See, e.g., Parry v. Parry, 933 So.2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, the trial court *803excluded the husband’s bonus payments from his income finding that the bonuses were not “fixed or guaranteed” because they are paid at the discretion of the husband’s employer and because they are dependent upon the employer’s yearly profit. While this is true, it is undisputed that the husband has received bonus payments each year for the past nine years, the last eight of which exceeded $25,000. Under similar circumstances, we have concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded bonuses when determining a party’s income for the purposes of alimony or support. See Parry, 933 So.2d at 16. Accordingly, we reverse the awards of alimony and child support and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hedden v. Hedden, 240 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…me when determining alimony. § 61.08(2)(i), Fla. Stat. (2016). When "a trial court calculates income for the purpose of awarding child support or alimony, it may not exclude from consideration bonuses that are regular and continuous." Drew v. Drew , 27 So. 3d 802, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). When "bonuses are regular and continuous, it is an abuse of discretion to exclude them from consideration when making support awards." Parry v. Parry , 933 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, the record is clear that For…
-
DiNARDO v. DiNARDO, 82 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…nuous. That finding was never modified or vacated. Therefore, the trial court was required to take the Husband’s bonus income into account in assessing his financial resources available for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs. Cf. Drew v. Drew, 27 So. 3d 802, 802-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requiring the trial court to consider regular and continuous bonuses in calculating income for the purposes of alimony and child support); Parry v. Parry, 933 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (requiring the trial court to…
-
Barlow v. Jilla Barlow, 224 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…courts to consider bonuses in calculating a spouse’s income for purposes of child support, and section 61.08(2)(g) requires trial courts to consider ‘[a]ll sources of income available to either party’ in computing an award of alimony.” Drew v. Drew, 27 So. 3d 802, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (alteration in original). Thus, we have held that bonus income must be included in the calculations of both child support and alimony when it is regular and continuous. See id. (citing Parry v. Parry, 933 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla. 2…
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
- Ingrid Parry v. Parry, 933 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)