CRESPO
v.
LEBRON
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.
Business losses cannot be subtracted from gross income in calculating child support obligations unless established by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] Business losses claimed as deductions from gross income in child support calculations must be established by competent, substantial evidence and cannot rest on conclusory…
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 intelligence“business income" as "gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income”
Citation to statutory definition of how business income is calculated for child support purposes
Appellant appealed a final judgment determining child support owed by Appellee (Former Husband). Appellee claimed losses from a batting cage business …
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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.