BRYAN M. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF TINA M. TURNER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed paternity judgment based on genetic testing but reversed the imputed income calculation, requiring the trial court to follow statutory procedures for determining appropriate child support on remand.
Paternity is established where appellant failed to object to genetic test results showing 99.99% probability of paternity, but imputed income of $2,000 monthly lacks evidentiary support and must be recalculated following statutory procedures.
[1] Failure to object to genetic test results showing 99.99 percent probability of paternity constitutes acceptance establishing paternity under section 742.12, Florida Statu…
[2] Imputation of income for voluntary unemployment must be supported by competent, substantial evidence and calculated following statutory procedures in section 61.30(2)(b)-…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Wright was subject to a paternity action by the Department of Revenue on behalf of Tina Turner regarding a child. Genetic testing showed a 9…
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 Genetic Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment of paternity established in the permanent support order pursuant to section 742.12, Florida Statutes (1999), because appellant failed to object to the test results that showed a 99.99 percent probability that he is the child’s father. We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant is voluntarily unemployed, thereby warranting the imputation of income under section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1999); however, we reverse the imputa tion of $2,000 per month net income to appellant, because the amount is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The trial court is directed on remand to follow the procedures outlined in subsections 61.30(2)(b)-(6) in determining the amount of gross income to impute to appellant based on his work history and/or current earnings from his corporate golf sponsorship, the allowable deductions, and the amount of net income to be imputed to appellant prior to determining the amount of child support under subsection 61.30(6). In addition, the trial court is directed to consider subsection 61.30(17) in the event retroactive child support is awarded on remand.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ERVIN, BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sobrevilla v. Dep't OF Revenue, 996 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…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 affid…