When it comes to child support cases, one of the most important issues can be whether or not the law allows the court to impute additional income to the obligor parent for the purposes of calculating his support amount. One of the keys to imputing income is proving that the obligor is voluntarily underemployed or unemployed. In a potentially important new decision from the First District Court of Appeal, that court broke with the Fourth District Court of Appeal and decided that a judge could decline to enter an order of support when the obligor parent was soon to enter prison for two years.
If you watch enough TV courtroom drama shows, you’ve likely seen it at some point. One of the lawyers will attempt to introduce some piece of evidence, and the other attorney will exclaim, “Objection! Hearsay!” While hearsay objections may be more commonly associated with criminal cases, they also take place in civil matters as well, including family law disputes. In a case recently before the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the hearsay rule and its exceptions were the key issue in deciding whether the wife had proper evidence to support her argument for imputing income to the husband. Since the appeals court decided that the wife’s evidence wasn’t admissible, that meant that the trial court order had to be reversed.
Family law cases, like many varieties of litigation, can sometimes take unexpected turns. One such example was a case recently decided by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In this case, a mother in a child support case lost her job after the final hearing but before the trial court issued its judgment. The appeals court upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant a motion to reopen the case, since granting that type of motion would prejudice the father too much and essentially require starting the case over from the beginning.
The litigants in this case were a couple from Brevard County. They were in court to establish a parenting plan and child support. The parenting plan called for the father to have the children 2/3 of the time and the mother to receive 1/3 of the time. Based upon the timesharing, the parents’ incomes, and all of the other relevant factors, the trial court determined that the wife owed child support. In assessing the wife’s child support obligation, the court followed the child support guidelines based upon the mother’s income from her job.
Child support cases, especially when you are facing contempt and possible jail time, are serious matters. There are many ways the courts can find you capable of making your child support payments, but there are other resources the law does not require you to deplete just to meet your support obligation. In one recent case from the Florida Panhandle, a father won a reversal of his contempt finding and jail sentence because, according to the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling, everything the trial court used to find that the man had willfully declined to pay his child support was either too small, had no evidence to support it, or was an asset the father was not legally obligated to liquidate just to pay his child support. The appeals court’s ruling is a useful reminder of the several ways that a parent who owes support can defend himself in a contempt case.
A popular song from 2005 took a cynical look at certain aspects of couples and family relationships. In the song, the rapper opines, “She got one of your kids, got you for 18 years.” The lyric, of course, is a reference to child support and the commonly held notion that a parent owing support could potentially pay from the child’s birth until the child reaches the age of majority on her 18th birthday. In states like Florida, however, this notion is not precisely accurate. A recent case from North Florida illustrates this point. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision to award child support to a father, even though he filed his request for support after the daughter had already turned 18 years old. Why did he win? He won because, although the child was 18, she had not yet graduated from high school.
When your spouse or you decides to file for divorce, the issues may seem straightforward, regardless of whether or not they are contested. You may have to resolve matters surrounding child custody and timesharing, child support, alimony, and the distribution of marital assets. Even if these issues do seem straightforward at first, do not fall into the trap of thinking that this necessarily means that you do not need experienced legal counsel. Any of these issues may present within it nuanced elements of the law. For example, in a child support and alimony case from this spring, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order obliging the husband to pay for his wife’s moving out and obtaining a new apartment. The husband’s appeal succeeded because the way the trial court structured the obligation did not comply with the specific requirements of the law.
One of the many things you may be concerned about in a child support dispute is, “How will the court go about calculating how much I am able to pay?” This concern can be extremely high if you are someone who has recently lost your job, especially in this time of economic uncertainty and frequent “downsizing.” A case from the Tampa area that the Second District Court of Appeal decided earlier this month offers some very useful insight and information on this topic, along with hope for parents who’ve been recently fired but who are in court as potential payors of child support.
A Miami-Dade mother may be in the position of going from receiving child support to paying support. The mother’s attempt to challenge a court order creating this modification failed as the 3d District Court of Appeal ruled that the procedural basis she used for challenging the modification was incorrect, and, as a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the mother’s request.
When J.T. (father) and E.T. (mother) divorced in 2002, they reached a mediated settlement agreement as part of that case. The agreement stated that the husband would pay $444 per month in support for the couple’s one child. A decade later, the father went back to court to modify child support. He was approaching retirement, and his retirement would lead to a substantial reduction in his income. A hearing officer looked at both parents’ evidence and decided that, based upon the new income figures, the mother now owed the father a child support obligation in the amount of $384 per month. The trial judge approved the officer’s findings on March 24, 2013.
A recent case originating in Jacksonville led the 1st District Court of Appeal to throw out part of a trial court’s decision to modify a parenting plan and calculate child support. The evidence in the case did not show that a substantial change in circumstances had taken place to warrant a plan modification, and there was also insufficient evidence to support the manner in which the trial court calculated each parent’s income in arriving at the father’s support obligation amount.
The case centered around the daughter of T.B. (father) and V.B. (mother), a couple who divorced in 2005. In 2011, the father sought to amend the parenting plan. He also filed a motion asking the court to lower his child support obligation.
A man from Sweden found himself facing a child support case in South Florida, but he ultimately was able to persuade the 4th District Court of Appeal that the Florida courts could not hear the case because Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Simply taking action in the case for the purpose of seeking the matter’s dismissal is not enough to trigger personal jurisdiction. Even when you are trying to persuade the courts that you do not have the required minimum contact with Florida, this does not handcuff you into refraining from taking action in the case, as long as that action is strictly defensive in nature.
The case was a child support action in which the mother, C.L., asked a Broward County court to impose a support obligation on the father, C.G. The court papers were served on the father in Sweden, where he resided. The mother argued that, in accordance with the Hague Convention’s rules regarding overseas service, the court could extend its jurisdiction over the father. The father submitted a limited response, filed (and quickly withdrew) two discovery requests, and also agreed to extend a discovery deadline.