DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF SANDRA I. SOTO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE ENRIQUE SOTO, 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 Department of Revenue appealed a trial court's order awarding child support credit for gifts purchased by the father for his minor daughter. The court reversed, holding that gifts and non-essential items cannot be credited against retroactive child support obligations absent evidence that the gifts provided for the child's health and well-being.
Gifts and non-essential items cannot be credited against retroactive child support obligations. Only actual payments for necessities that provide for a child's health and well-being—such as private school tuition, prescriptions, and health insurance—may be credited under section 61.30(17)(b). The trial court must determine on remand whether the specific gifts at issue qualify as necessities.
[1] Payments for gifts, such as jewelry or designer accessories, do not constitute child support and cannot be credited against a retroactive child support obligation.
[2] A parent may receive credit against a retroactive child support obligation for actual payments made for the child's necessities, including those for health and well-being…
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“All actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period.”
Section 61.30(17)(b) establishing what payments may be credited against retroactive child support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Enrique Soto was ordered to pay retroactive child support for his minor daughter. The trial court allowed him credit for approximately $1,600 in …
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Revenue (DOR) seeks review of the trial court’s order requiring appellee to pay past and present child support for the care of his minor daughter. DOR raises several issues; we find merit in only one.
The trial court determined a retroactive child support obligation and allowed appel-lee credit against this support obligation, including approximately $1,600 based on gifts appellee stated he purchased for the minor daughter on Christmases and her birthdays. Section 61.30(17)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), authorizes the assignment of credit against a retroactive child support obligation for:
(b) All actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child *172throughout the proposed retroactive period.
Here, the record reveals appellee merely testified he purchased $1,600 in gifts for his daughter and did not specify what those gifts entailed except to state he purchased his daughter a puppy at the cost of $500.
Prior to the passage of section 61.80(17)(b), Florida courts generally prohibited the crediting of payments for nonessential items against child support ar-rearages. Montante v. Montante, 627 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding no credit should be given for payments which did not constitute a support obligation paid for a child’s necessities); see also Dep’t of Revenue by and on behalf of Jones v. Jones, 689 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding gifts purchased for Christmas could not be considered support payments in compliance with the support order); Goldman v. Goldman, 529 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 8d DCA 1988) (holding payments made for the benefit of a child may not be credited against a retroactive child support obligation absent a showing of compelling equitable circumstances); Wooten v. Wooten, 510 So.2d 1033, 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding the same).
It is well settled that statutes must be read in the light of the common law. H.K. v. State, 711 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade, 287 So.2d 669, 670 (Fla.1973)). Accordingly, the use of the term “benefit” should be interpreted in light of the earlier settled precedent establishing only those payments which provide for the health and well-being of the child may be credited against a retroactive child support obligation. As noted in Montante, 627 So.2d at 556, “jewelry and Gucci accessories ... are gifts and not support. On the other hand, private school tuition, prescriptions, and health insurance are necessities that may be considered as an element of support.” *
There are many types of payments which may provide for a child’s necessities so as to “benefit” the child pursuant to section 61.30(17)(b). While a court retains broad discretion in awarding credit, the failure to exercise that discretion constitutes reversible error. VFD v. State, 19 So.3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Steinmann v. State, 839 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) for the proposition that failure to exercise discretion constitutes reversible error). Without record evidence establishing the nature of the gifts appellee stated he purchased for his daughter, it is impossible for this court or the trial court to determine if those gifts benefited the child pursuant to section 61.30(17)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court readdress the issue of credit for past child support in a manner consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED.
WEBSTER, J., concurs; THOMAS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 211 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…gislature did not explicitly and clearly overrule the common law limitation on loss of consortium when enacting the Wrongful Death Act, the common law marriage before injury rule was incorporated into the Act. See Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28 So. 3d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that Florida’s child support statute should be read in light of settled common law precedents limiting the type of gifts that can be credited against retroactive child support obligations). Further, there appears t…
-
Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Lashawndria E. Mash v. Ingram, 112 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ion. § 61.30(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). It is possible that gifts purchased for the benefit of the child might qualify as “actual payments ... for the benefit of the child” as contemplated by section 61.30(17). Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, there is no provision in the statute allowing credit for “in-kind contribution of child-rearing responsibilities” to be applied to a retroactive child support obligation, as the administrative law judge ordered in this…
Authorities Cited
- Iva Nelson Gonzales v. City OF Belle Glade, 287 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1973)
- Goldman v. Goldman, 529 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Revitz v. Terrell, 627 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Wooten v. Wooten, 510 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Steinmann v. State, 839 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- J.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- H.K. v. State, 711 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- State v. Jones, 689 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)