TRISTA ANNE BOWER, APPELLANT,
v.
WADE PATRICK HANSMAN, 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 trial court erred by including child support from a prior relationship in a party's net income for child support calculations.
The trial court determined a party's net income for child support by including child support received for a child from a prior relationship. The party…
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 Income Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Trista Bower appeals from a final judgment of paternity. On appeal, she raises several issues, only one of which merits discussion. In determining Bower’s net income for the purpose of calculating child support, the trial court included as income child support Bower received on behalf of a child born from a prior relationship. This was error. See Sotoloff v. Sotoloff, 745 So.2d 959, 961-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (child support payments mother received for her child from previous marriage could not be included in calculating child support obligation of father of child from subsequent marriage).
On remand, after redetermining Bower’s net income, the trial court is directed to recalculate: (1) the father’s child support obligation; (2) the parties’ respective financial responsibilities for the child’s medical expenses and child care costs; and (3) the amount of arrearages. The trial court is not required to accept new evidence in making these adjustments.
Because a redetermination of Bower’s net income will result in an increased disparity in the parties’ respective net incomes, the trial court is also directed to reconsider its denial of Bower’s request for attorney’s fees. We affirm as to the other issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
EVANDER and COHEN, JJ„ and HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlson v. Carlson, 204 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…the error by eliminating the $400 discount from the wife’s income altogether. - Finally, because we are reversing for a recalculation of the Wife’s income, the trial court should reconsider the issue of attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Bower v. Hansman, 161 So. 3d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“Because a redetermination of Bower’s net income will result in an increased disparity in the parties’ respective net incomes, the trial court is also directed to reconsider its denial of Bower’s request for attorney’s fees…
Authorities Cited
- Bravo v. Matilda Sauter, 745 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Sotoloff v. Sotoloff, 745 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)