JOHN BISHOP, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, O/B/O ELIZABETH SIEBERT, 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 Fourth District reversed a child support order because the trial court imputed income to the father without substantial competent evidence, and remanded for recalculation of the support obligation based on proper evidentiary findings.
A trial court's imputation of income to establish a child support obligation must be supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
[1] Imputation of income for child support purposes requires substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's determination.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Bishop appealed a paternity and child support order in which the trial court imputed income to him to calculate his child support obligation to E…
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 Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, John Bishop, appeals from the final order and judgment of paternity and support. Appellee, Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, acknowledges that the record lacks substantial competent evidence to support the lower court’s order imputing income to the appellant for the purpose of establishing his child support obligation. Accordingly, appellee confesses error. Appellee further acknowledges that, in light of this confession of error, the retroactive child support amount based on the imputed income is also erroneous. We accept the appellee’s confession of error, and reverse and remand the case for further proceedings establishing the appellant’s child support obligation. See Bengisu v. Bengisu, 12 So.3d 283, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“[W]e reverse and remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings based on competent substantial evidence of husband’s income and to award an appropriate amount of temporary support based on those findings. Whether additional testimony and evidence is required or whether the current record contains sufficient evidence, we leave for the trial court to determine.”). The paternity adjudication provisions of the order on appeal are not at issue.
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.