HAROLD ROBERT RUSSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
HOLLY A. MCQUEEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed paternity judgment but reversed and remanded on child support calculation due to five specific errors: failure to include father's health insurance costs, use of incorrect insurance figures, double-charging medical expenses, use of wrong tax year for retroactive support, and improper attribution of wife's income to father.
The trial court's paternity judgment is affirmed, but the child support calculation must be reversed and remanded due to five enumerated errors in determining the support amount.
[1] Health insurance costs covering a child must be included in calculating child support obligations.
[2] Income attributable to a spouse rather than the obligor parent cannot be counted as the obligor's income for child support calculation purposes.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFather appealed a trial court's paternity judgment and child support determination. The trial court calculated child support using various figures inc…
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 Attribution cases and more on FLexlaw
Harold Robert Russell [“Father”] appeals the trial court’s final judgment of paternity. Father contends that the trial court made several errors in determining child support. We agree that five specific errors were made, but in all other respects, we affirm the judgment. First, it was error to fail to include the cost to Father of the health insurance that covered his child in calculating child support. Second, as Holly A. McQueen [“Mother”] concedes on appeal, the court used an incorrect figure to calculate the cost of insurance. Third, the trial court’s calculation contains a double charge for unreimbursed medical expenses. It was error to use the 2007 tax return of Father, instead of the 2006 return, to calculate retroactive child support from June 1 through December 2006. Finally, it appears that the trial court erred in attributing the $89,915, shown on Father’s tax return, filed jointly with his wife, to Father as income to him. According to the tax return and the testimony, this was his wife’s salary as CEO of Russell’s Telecom. The trial court made no finding, and our review of the record discloses no evidence that this income was Father’s. To the extent of these errors, the judgment must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration and recalculation of child support.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. McQUEEN, 115 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…SAWAYA, J. The first appearance of the underlying paternity action in this court two years ago resulted in an opinion that specified five errors regarding the computation of child support that required correction on remand. Russell v. McQueen, 62 So. 3d 683, 683 (Fla. 6th DCA 2011) (Russell I). Of those errors, the following two are pertinent to our review in this current appeal: twice charging the father, Harold Russell (Father), for the child’s unreimbursed medical expenses; and failing to properly c…
-
Miller v. State, 106 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…t costs and fines. The State properly concedes error. See Wilcox v. State, 79 So. 3d 878, 878-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (holding that no statutory basis exists to impose lien on inmate trust account for court costs and fines); Araujo-Espichan v. State, 62 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (reversing judgment that improperly placed lien on inmate’s account and instructing lower court to reimburse funds removed from account). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND, with instructions that the State be ordered to r…