BRAD E. PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
JODIE ANN PARKER, 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.
Brad Parker appealed a trial court order modifying child support and finding him in contempt. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in calculating the mother's income and failed to comply with Florida statutory requirements for deductions from gross income.
The trial court erred in calculating the mother's income from her bi-weekly pay statement and failed to comply with section 61.30(3), Florida Statutes, in determining deductions. The contempt finding must be reversed because it was based on the incorrect child support calculation. The case is remanded for recalculation of support and arrearages with substantial, competent evidence.
[1] A trial court errs in child support calculations when it utilizes a bi-weekly pay statement as monthly income without proper adjustment.
[2] A trial court must comply with statutory requirements when determining deductions from gross income for child support calculations.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A reviewing court will affirm an award of child support if it is supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record.”
Establishes the standard of review requiring substantial competent evidence to support 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 intelligenceThe parties disputed the calculation of child support modification. The trial court used the mother's bi-weekly pay statement to determine her monthly…
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 Gross Income Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal of a November 26, 2013, order modifying child support and granting motion for contempt for enforcement, the parties agree that the trial court erred in utilizing the mother’s income as reported in her bi-weekly pay statement as her monthly income. The parties also agree that the trial court failed to comply with section 61.30(3), Florida Statutes (2013), in determining the correct deductions from the mother’s gross income.
The standard of review from the grant of a child support award is abuse of discretion. Seward v. Fla. Dep’t of Rev., 794 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). A reviewing court will affirm an award of child support if it is supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record. Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Finding no substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding of the mother’s net income, we reverse and remand.
In doing so, we remind the parties and the trial court that the definition of “gross income” includes “allowances,” per section 61.30(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), and that support for each child continues until the child turns nineteen or graduates from high school, whichever occurs first, per the marital settlement agreement.
On remand, the trial court is to reconsider the calculation of the father’s ar-rearages in light of the corrected modification of support and to ensure that substantial, competent evidence supports any calculations of those arrearages, in-*1292eluding evidence of the father’s actual payments during the relevant period. Because we remand for correction of the underlying support and recalculation of arrearages, we must also reverse any findings that the father is in contempt. See Brennan v. Brennan, 122 So.3d 923, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We also remind the trial court that any findings of contempt must comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(d)(1).
Finally, the trial court is directed to consider the relative financial resources of the parties in accordance with section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2013), when ruling on any requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to that section.
Therefore, the November 26, 2013, order is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEWIS, C.J., and WETHERELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ziruolo v. Ziruolo, 217 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…indings before making an unequal distribution in Appellee’s favor, Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So. 3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Child Support We review a trial court’s award of child support under the abuse of discretion standard. Parker v. Parker, 141 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). A trial court determines the amount of child support a party owes by utilizing the guidelines set forth in § 61.30, Florida Statutes. Because the trial court failed to apply these child support guidelines, we reverse and remand…
Authorities Cited
- Gaylen Lee Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Brennan v. Brennan, 122 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Seward v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Michelle R. McCLELLAN, 794 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)