RENATO L. LOMBARDI, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LISA A. LOMBARDI, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
RENATO L. LOMBARDI, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
LISA A. LOMBARDI, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
673 So. 2d 175
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1996)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
FARMER, Judge.
In calculating the father’s income for purposes of child support in this dissolution of marriage action, the court imputed additional income in an amount equal to 100% of an automobile allowance given him by his employer. We reverse this imputation.
On remand, the court should determine how much of the allowance represents reimbursement for the use of his automobile in the employer’s business and how much, if any, represents income to the father. Only the latter may be imputed for purposes of calculating his child support obligation.
In all other respects we affirm on all issues.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vergara v. Vergara, 831 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…have an expense account and because he is reimbursed for expenses he actually incurs, these amounts do not represent income. Therefore, the trial court erred in determining the expenses as income, for child support purposes. See Lombardi v. Lombardi 673 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Also, before a trial court can include a bonus in calculating net income for child support purposes, the bonus must be regular and continuous. See Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 S…