AIXA LEBRON CRESPO, APPELLANT,
v.
RUBEN A. LEBRON, 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 court reversed and remanded a child support determination because the trial court improperly included unsubstantiated business losses in calculating the obligor's gross income.
Business losses from a self-operated business cannot be subtracted from other income sources when calculating gross income for child support purposes unless established by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] Business losses from a self-operated business must be established by competent, substantial evidence to be deducted from other income sources when calculating gross incom…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFormer Husband has multiple income sources including a Federal Bureau of Prisons salary, rental income, and VA benefits, and operates a batting cage b…
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
Former Wife appeals a final judgment determining child support and a child support arrearage. At trial, the parties presented evidence that Former Husband has several sources of income, including a Federal Bureau of Prisons salary, rental income, and Veterans Administration living expense reimbursement and disability benefits. There was also evidence that Former Husband owns and operates a batting cage business, which he testified actually lost money during the relevant time period. As a result, he argued that these business losses should be subtracted from his other sources of income when calculating his total gross income. However, Former Husband testified in conclusory fashion, and did not establish the business losses by competent, substantial evidence. See § 61.30(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (2014) (defining "business income" as "gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income"). Even still, it appears that the trial court included some amount of business losses when calculating Former Husband's total income. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to recalculate child support and the child support arrearage without subtracting business losses from Former Husband's other sources of income.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.