STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF JOYCE JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LEO F. THOMAS, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order reducing a father's child support obligation, finding it was an abuse of discretion to award a substantial decrease when the father voluntarily left full-time employment to pursue education. The court remanded for reconsideration of whether a temporary, limited reduction might be justified.
The trial court abused its discretion in awarding a substantial decrease in child support when the decrease in income was voluntary. However, the court remanded because the record suggested the father may have experienced recent difficulties that could justify a temporary reduction in support for the time reasonably necessary for him to reestablish himself.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by reducing a party's child support obligation when the decrease in income is voluntary.
[2] The clean hands doctrine precludes a court from relieving a party of a support obligation when the decrease in ability to pay results from the party's voluntary acts.
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“Because the trial court specifically found that the decrease in the father's income was voluntary, it was error for the court to reduce the father's child support obligation.”
Establishes the primary legal principle that voluntary income reduction cannot justify substantial reduction in child support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had two minor children, ages 8 and 13. The father petitioned for downward modification of his child support obligation. The trial court fo…
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 Unclean Hands Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Appellant/Mother’s appeal of the trial court’s order granting Appellee/Father’s petition for a downward modification of support for the parties’ two minor children, ages 8 and 13.
The trial court found on the record that Father had “voluntarily and unilaterally taken himself out of the full work force to pursue education,” yet awarded a substantial decrease in his monthly child support obligation. This was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“Because the trial court specifically found that the decrease in the father’s income was voluntary, it was error for the court to reduce the father’s child support obligation.”); Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“The clean hands doctrine precludes a court from relieving a party of his or her support obligation, when the decrease in ability to pay resulted from the party’s voluntary acts ...”); see also Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (“[W]e think it clear that an able-bodied gainfudly employed ex-wife cannot justify an increase in alimony payments on the grounds of increased need through the simple expediency of voluntarily leaving the gainful employment she had theretofore enjoyed even though her motive be [sic] to further her formal education.”).
Nevertheless, the record suggests that Father has experienced recent difficulties which may justify a temporary reduction in his child support obligation. See Pitts, 626 So. 2d at 283 (reversing and remanding for further proceedings where father’s circumstances appeared to have entitled him to an order temporarily reducing child support payments during the time reasonably necessary for him to reestablish himself).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)…itted). See also Ledbetter v. Bell, 658 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(following Arce, reduction is voluntary if result of good faith, reasonable, and calculated to benefit all parties). On the other hand, in State Department of Revenue v. Thomas, 659 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the First District held that voluntarily and unilaterally taking oneself out of the full-time work force to pursue one’s education constitutes an insufficient justification to warrant a downward modification in child support. Se…
-
Overbey v. Overbey, 674 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…een and ten years of age. On the issue presented to us — ie., the “voluntariness” of the parent’s decision— there apparently is a conflict between the First and Third District Courts. In State, Department of Revenue, on Behalf of Johnson v. Thomas, 659 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the lower court granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of child support, but at the same time found that the father had “voluntarily and unilaterally taken himself out of the full work force to pursue educatio…
Authorities Cited
- Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)