STANLEY A. WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRIN L. WALKER, 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 court held that the trial court erred in imputing rent allowance twice when calculating the former-husband's net monthly income.
The former-husband, employed by the U.S. Coast Guard, receives a rent allowance which was included in his net monthly income and then additionally imp…
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 Net Monthly Income cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, J.
Appellant, Stanley Walker (“former-husband”), appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and the order awarding attorneys fees to Carrin Walker (“former-wife”). We affirm the trial court in all respects except we reverse the computation of the former-husband’s net monthly income.
The former-husband is employed by the U.S. Coast Guard and receives a monthly allowance for rent, electric, water, gas, sewer, garbage, and gym fees. As such, the trial court imputed an additional $853 to the former-husband’s net monthly income, reasoning these are normal expenditures which most individuals must pay from their net monthly income. However, the former-husband’s net monthly income, as evidenced from his pay stubs, includes $521 per month for adequate quarters, which is later deducted. Therefore, the trial court’s calculation includes the cost of the former-husband’s rent twice, i.e., the amount for rent was included in the net monthly income and the imputed amount.
Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate the former-husband’s net monthly income. Further, the trial court may adjust any monetary awards affected by the recalculation.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rice v. State, 754 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…t authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indirectly, in aid of any sectarian institution.” Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So. 2d 246, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1995). In Easley v. State, 755 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 1251 (Fla.2000), the fourth district applied these tests to paragraph 893.13(l)(e) and found no violation of either establishment clause. Upon consideration, we agree. The primary purpose and effect of th…
-
State v. McCLELLAN, 765 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…tatute is not unconstitutionally vague. We affirm the trial court’s ruling in this regard. See Hobby v. State, 761 So. 2d 1234; Rice v. State, 754 So. 2d at 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Jean v. State, 764 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Easley v. State, 755 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, CONCUR.…
-
State v. Glover, 776 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…federal and Florida Constitutions’ respective Establishment Clauses. We also reject this challenge to the statute. See Rice v. State, 754 So. 2d 881, 883-84 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, No. SC00-1070, — So. 2d - (Fla. Dec.19, 2000); Easley v. State, 755 So. 2d 692, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So. 2d 1251 (Fla.2000). We reverse and remand [*1130] with directions that the trial court reinstate Count I of the information. BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence