C.J.I.-R., APPELLANT,
v.
C.M., 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.
In this family law appeal, the Father challenges a final judgment establishing paternity, a parenting plan, and child support. The appellate court reverses the child support calculation because the trial court used net income figures not supported by the evidence presented at trial, but affirms the judgment in all other respects.
The trial court's net income calculation of $2,573.41 was not supported by competent substantial evidence and overstated the Father's net income by $106.48 per month. The case is reversed and remanded for recalculation of child support using the Father's net income of $2,466.93 from his financial affidavit. All other aspects of the judgment are affirmed.
[1] A trial court's calculation of a party's net income for child support purposes must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A party's financial affidavit, admitted into evidence without objection, may constitute competent substantial evidence of that party's income.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In determining child support, a trial court's finding regarding a party's income must be supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring evidentiary support for income findings in 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 intelligenceC.J.I.-R. (the Father) and C.M. (the Mother) are parents of a daughter born in 2012. At the final hearing, the Father testified that his financial aff…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
C.J.I.-R. (the Father) and C.M. (the Mother) are the parents of a daughter born in 2012. The Father appeals a second amended final judgment1 that establishes paternity, a parenting plan, and child support. The Father raises several issues, only one of which warrants discussion. We reverse and remand solely for the trial court to calculate child support using the correct net income for the Father. We affirm in all other respects.
In determining child support, a trial court’s finding regarding a party’s income must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 98 So.3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); McCants v. McCants, 984 So.2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Here, at the final hearing the Father testified that the Mother’s Exhibit 2, his financial affidavit filed February 11, 2016, was an accurate reflection of his current income. He did not testify to any specific amounts of income or deductions, and the Mother’s counsel did not challenge him on any of the amounts listed. The Father’s financial affidavit entered into evidence shows a monthly tax liability of $575.07 and a net monthly income of $2466.93. But the worksheet attached to the second amended final judgment shows the Father’s monthly tax liability as $468.59, resulting in a net monthly income of $2573.41.
Thus, the worksheet the trial court used deviated from the evidence and overstated the Father’s net income by $106.48 per month. Therefore, the net income of $2573.41 for the Father that the trial court used to calculate child support is not sup*199ported by competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate child support using the Father’s net income of $2466.93 shown on his financial affidavit. Otherwise, we affirm the second amended final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
MORRIS and BLACK, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buck v. Buck (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…lized, or what calculations it used to reach those figures. Without competent, substantial evidence to support the court's income findings, we are compelled to reverse the court's judgment with respect to those calculations. See C.J.I.-R. v. C.M., 215 So. 3d 198, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citing Hoffman v. Hoffman, 98 So. 3d 196, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)).1 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below, but only as to the court's child support calculatio…
Authorities Cited
- Windom v. State, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Hoffman v. Melodie Joy Hoffman, 98 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)