ARTHUR WELLS, APPELLANT,
v.
TARSHICKA MARANDA WHITFIELD, 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 father appeals a child support judgment of $1,650 per month, challenging the trial court's inclusion of retained earnings from his S-corporation in calculating his gross income. The appellate court affirms the trial court's discretionary refusal to present additional evidence on rehearing but reverses and remands because the judgment lacks adequate findings explaining how the court calculated the father's gross income and the resulting child support obligation.
The court rejected the father's argument regarding the rehearing denial but agreed that the amended final judgment failed to include adequate findings specifying what portion of the S-corporation's retained earnings were included in the father's gross income. Without such findings, meaningful appellate review of whether the child support obligation complies with statutory guidelines is impossible.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to make specific findings to justify a child support obligation.
[2] Retained earnings of an S-corporation may be included in gross income for child support purposes.
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“the amended final judgment does not include any findings specifying what portion of the retained earnings were included by the court in determining the father's gross income. Absent such findings, we are unable to meaningfully review the child support obligation established by the trial court”
The core basis for reversal—the judgment lacks the specific factual findings necessary for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father is the sole shareholder of an S-corporation. He argued that retained earnings (undistributed profits) of the S-corporation should be exclud…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the father, seeks review of the amended final judgment establishing his child support obligation at $1,650 per month. We reject the father’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to present additional evidence on rehearing, but we agree with the father that the findings in the amended final judgment do not adequately justify the child support obligation established by the trial court.
Although the record supports the trial court’s finding that the father failed to establish that all of the retained earnings 1 of the S-corporation for which he is the sole shareholder should be excluded from his gross income for child support purposes, the amended final judgment does not include any findings specifying what portion of the retained earnings were included by the court in determining the father’s gross income. Absent such findings, we are unable to meaningfully review the child support obligation established by the trial court to determine whether it is within the guidelines or whether it is a legally permissible deviation from the guidelines.2 See Valdes v. Valdes, 6 So.3d 731, 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Karimi v. Karimi, 867 So.2d 471, 473-74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse the amended final judgment and remand for the trial court to make specific findings indicating how it arrived at the amount of the father’s child support obligation.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
THOMAS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Milan Todorovic v. Arctic AIR OF Cent. Fla. & Am. All-Risk Administrators, 867 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Valdes v. Valdes, 6 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Timmons v. State, 933 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Jones v. Crosby, 933 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)