PETER JAMES HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MELODIE JOY HOFFMAN, 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.
A former husband appeals a child support order requiring $969.48 monthly payments based on an imputed income of $3,000 per month. The court reversed, finding the trial court lacked competent, substantial evidence to support the income calculation and abused its discretion.
The trial court lacked competent, substantial evidence to support an imputed monthly income of $3,000. The court's 'pro rata ratio-type' determination was not grounded in evidence or statutory imputation authority, constituting an abuse of discretion.
[1] Child support awards must be based upon competent, substantial evidence of a party's net income.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in calculating child support when it relies on a determination of income not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the recor…
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“Child support awards must be based upon competent, substantial evidence of a party's net income.”
Establishes the foundational legal standard governing child 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 intelligencePeter Hoffman, a former husband, accepted a teaching position in China after unsuccessful job searches in Florida and Michigan. He earned 39,547 Chine…
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 Net Monthly Income cases and more on FLexlaw
In this postdissolution proceeding, Peter Hoffman, the former husband, challenges the trial court’s order requiring him to pay monthly child support of $969.48.1 He argues that the court lacked competent, substantial evidence on which to find the former husband’s monthly income was $3000 and, as a result, abused its discretion in basing the child support calculation thereon. We agree.
At the evidentiary hearing on the supplemental petition to modify parenting plan and other relief filed by Melodie Hoff*197man, the former wife, both the former husband and the former wife testified regarding the former husband’s employment. The former husband testified that after looking for employment as a teacher in Florida and in Michigan and finding none, he accepted a teaching position in the People’s Republic of China. He submitted a letter from his employer, Sino-star Foreign Language Institute Training Center, stating that his income for the period of December 13, 2010, to June 17, 2011, was 39,547 Chinese Yuan. The former husband testified that the exchange rate at that time was 6.5 Chinese Yuan to one U.S. Dollar. He also submitted evidence that his annual income in 2009 was $1347 and $2955 in 2010. The former wife testified that teaching positions were available in Polk County, Florida with annual salaries between $32,000 and $35,000.
In calculating the former husband’s child support obligation, the trial court stated:
I’ve got this problem in terms of his salary. He’s paid in yen [sic] and he’s living in the People’s Republic of China. And you’re telling me that I should only figure his income based on the fact that he’s saying in his financial affidavit that he’s getting about $923 a month.
But then I look at his rent, and it’s in U.S. dollars, $46 a month, and his food costs for the month are $76 a month. And I just understand that the cost of living is tremendously less in China than it is in the United States, and that [$]923 a month that he’s earning over there is simply not realistic when you try to figure it against his own cost of living over there.
And so what I’ve decided to do is — and I did this on sort of a pro rata ratio-type thing in my mind — decide that his net monthly income is the equivalent of earning in the U.S. $3,000 per month.
Child support awards must be based upon competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income. Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So.3d 991, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see Warren v. Warren, 84 So.3d 461, 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Here, there is no evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s “pro rata ratio-type” determination that the former husband’s monthly income was $3000. Nor is there any indication that the court imputed income to the former husband for the period after December 10, 2010, or any evidence supporting the imputation necessary to reach a monthly income of $3000. See § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009); Bator v. Osborne, 983 So.2d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings with regard to the former husband’s child support obligation beginning December 13, 2010.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…l Judgment to clearly establish the father’s income and allowable deductions. Our decision rests on the well-established rule that “[c]hild support awards must be based on competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 98 So. 3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)); Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679, 682 (…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Shirer, 197 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ficant, material, involuntary and permanent in nature,” id. (quoting Fisher v. Fisher, 722 So. 2d 243, 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)), and any resulting award “must be based upon competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income,” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 98 So. 3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). However, where the issue relates to a trial court’s application of the law, our review is de novo. Finney v. Finney, 995 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“[A] trial court’s discretion concerning child support is subject…
-
Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o T.L.S. v. S.J.W., 113 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…o the final judgment, it was not completed and does not indicate the actual child support to be paid. DOR is challenging the determination of child support, which this court would generally review for an abuse of discretion. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 98 So. 3d 196, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). However, “[t]he right to claim a statutory deduction to a spouse’s gross income under the child support guideline is a mixed question of law and fact. The determination of the appropriate legal standard to be applied in a ca…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Burgess v. State, 983 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Warren v. Caryn R. Warren, 84 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Miakkar L. Brown v. State, 84 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)