Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final paternity judgment awarding timesharing, child support, and parental responsibility, but reversed the portion calculating child support for 2024 and thereafter. The court held that the trial court inconsistently relied on the father's purported Uber earnings after rejecting his testimony and failed to consider relevant business income. The case was remanded for recalculation of 2024 and ongoing child support.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on purported Uber earnings and personal deposits to calculate 2024 and ongoing child support after rejecting the father's testimony concerning his Uber employment.
- Whether the trial court was required to consider the father's business income when determining monthly income for child-support purposes.
Holdings
- In determining each parent's monthly income for child-support purposes, the trial court must consider business income as required by section 61.30(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes.
- The trial court abused its discretion by relying on the same purported Uber earnings it had rejected in calculating 2024 and ongoing child support, while limiting its consideration to personal deposits and excluding business income.
- A court must impute income to an unemployed or underemployed parent when the unemployment or underemployment is voluntary, absent a finding of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances beyond the parent's control.
Key quotations
“But in calculating 2024 and ongoing support, the trial court incongruously relied on the same Uber earnings it previously rejected and further restricted its consideration to personal deposits, as opposed to the holistic indicia of business revenue.” (6-7)
“Because we cannot reconcile these findings, we are constrained to reverse, in part, and remand for the trial court to recalculate 2024 and ongoing support.” (7)
Factual background
The parties married in 2013 and have a six-year-old child. The father owned or was associated with three businesses, but during years of litigation he submitted inconsistent financial affidavits and failed to fully comply with discovery concerning his finances. A forensic accountant testified that the father's businesses generated substantially more income than reflected in his affidavits, and the trial court rejected the father's testimony that he was employed as an Uber driver. Despite that finding, the trial court relied on the father's purported Uber earnings and personal deposits, without considering business income, when calculating 2024 and ongoing child support.
Procedural history
The mother filed a verified petition for paternity in 2022. After extensive discovery litigation, including proceedings before a special master and temporary support recommendations from a general magistrate, the parties proceeded to a nonjury trial. The circuit court entered a final judgment awarding timesharing, child support, and parental responsibility, imputing income for 2021 and 2023 but relying on purported Uber earnings and personal deposits for 2024 and ongoing support. The mother moved for rehearing, the motion was denied, and she appealed.
Remand instructions
Recalculate 2024 and ongoing child support, considering the father's business income and reconciling the findings concerning his purported Uber earnings and actual earning capacity. The final judgment was affirmed in all other respects.