DAVID S. SOBREVILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, ON BEHALF OF LICI G. PASTOR-ROQUEZ, 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 appellate court reversed a child support order because the Department of Revenue's imputation of income was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court found the department failed to adequately consider the individual's earning capacity, occupational qualifications, prevailing wages, and the feasibility of increasing work hours.
No, the imputation of income was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court found the Department failed to consider crucial factors and lacked evidence to justify the increased income imputation.
[1] Imputation of income in a child support order must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A financial affidavit showing only current earnings is insufficient to establish a clear picture of potential earning capacity for income imputation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This income imputation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the core reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue imputed income to David S. Sobrevilla for child support purposes by using his current hourly wage and increasing his work we…
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 Occupational Qualifications cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a child support order, Florida’s Department of Revenue held that the Appellant, David S. Sobrevilla, was voluntarily underemployed, increasing his monthly income for the purpose of calculating prospective and retroactive child support. It accomplished this by using Sobrevilla’s current hourly wage, and by increasing his current work week of thirty-three hours per week to forty hours per week. This income imputation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. As such, we reverse and remand with directions to recalculate Sobrevilla’s income to an amount supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The standard of review governing the Department of Revenue’s imputation of income in a child support order is whether the amount is “supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Wright v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 833 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In this case, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the Department’s imputation of income for Sobrevilla. The only document the Department considered in imputing Sobrevil-la’s income was his financial affidavit, which failed to give a clear picture of Sobrevilla’s potential earning capacity by only showing his current earnings. The Department also failed to consider Sobre-villa’s occupational qualifications, as well as the prevailing wages in the community, only taking into account Sobrevilla’s recent work history in making its imputation of income. Furthermore, in increasing So-brevilla’s potential work week from thirty-three hours to forty hours, the Department failed to show how or by what means Sobrevilla could reasonably be expected to increase his current thirty-three hour work week to forty hours. Instead, the Department made a blanket statement, unsupported by any evidence, that Sobrevilla is able to increase his work week from thirty-three hours to forty hours.
Therefore, the Department’s imputation of income is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, warranting reversal.
Reversed and Remanded with Directions.
TAYLOR, HAZOURI, JJ., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fahner, 833 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Wright v. State, 833 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)