JOSHUA ADAM KING
v.
CANDACE DAWN KING
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.
Joshua Adam King appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage, challenging the trial court's child support award to the Mother. The appellate court reverses the child support calculation due to a mathematical error where the court added rather than subtracted tax obligations, but affirms all other aspects of the dissolution judgment.
The appellate court reversed the child support award because the trial court committed a mathematical error in computing net monthly income by adding rather than subtracting tax obligations. The court remanded with instructions for recalculation based on the parties' correct net monthly income. All other aspects of the dissolution judgment were affirmed.
[1] Mathematical computations in child support determinations are reviewed de novo rather than under the abuse of discretion standard applied to the trial court's discretiona…
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“[W]hether a trial court's mathematical computations are correct is a question of law which is reviewed de novo.”
Standard of review for mathematical computations in child support determinations
The trial court dissolved the marriage between Joshua Adam King (Father) and Candance Dawn King (Mother) and awarded child support to the Mother. In c…
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 Monthly Income cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312018DR001393.
Amy D. Shield and Roger Levine of Shield & Levine, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Dave Krupski of Dave Krupski, Esq., PLLC, Ponte Vedra Beach, for appellee. KLINGENSMITH, J.
Joshua Adam King, the Father, seeks review of the trial court’s final judgment dissolving his marriage to Candance Dawn King, the Mother. We reverse and remand the portion of the final judgment of dissolution awarding child support to the Mother because the trial court made a mathematical error in computing the award. We affirm on all other issues without further comment.
“A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test.” Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). However, “[w]hether a trial court’s mathematical computations are correct is a question of law which is reviewed de novo.” Kareff v. Kareff, 943 So. 2d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
“Section 61.30(9), Florida Statutes, provides the statutory formula which must be used to determine each parent’s actual dollar share.” Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d at 871. The child support guidelines first call for the trial court to calculate each parent’s gross monthly income. See Ervin v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 152 So. 3d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The court must then determine each parent’s net monthly income by subtracting the statutorily specified deductions from their gross monthly income. See id. These deductions include “[f]ederal, state, and local income tax deductions,” among others. § 61.30(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). After the court determines the parties combined monthly net income, it “then calculates each party’s percentage share of the child support need by dividing their net monthly income by the combined net monthly income.” Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Here, the trial court mistakenly added the parties’ tax obligations to their gross monthly income instead of subtracting it. Since the trial court was required by statute to consider the parties’ net monthly income, it erred by using an amount higher than their gross monthly income. See McKenzie v. McKenzie, 254 So. 3d 993, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s determination as to the child support award and remand with instructions for the court to recalculate that amount based on the parties’ net monthly income.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions. LEVINE, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delosreyes v. Rodel Bergonio Delosreyes, 392 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
-
Dunson v. Dunson, 369 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…mount multiplied by twelve months equals $43,302. Thus, as Father correctly alleges, the court based its child support calculation on Father’s gross income instead of his net income. This is error. See § 61.30(9), Fla. Stat. (2021); King v. King, 320 So. 3d 766, 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Marini v. Kellett, 279 So. 3d 248, 253–54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Mother maintains that Father effectively invited this error by stipulating 3 Again, because there is no transcript, our review is limited to errors that app…
-
Eberhart v. Nesia Eberhart (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Kareff v. Kareff, 943 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Ervin v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue & Hollie Starr, 152 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- McKenzie v. McKenzie, 254 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)