LUCINDA LYNN CHANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENT FREEMAN FIFE, 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.
Lucinda Lynn Chaney appealed a paternity, custody, and child support order. The Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's determinations regarding child support, federal tax credit transfer, non-covered medical expenses, and attorney's fees due to insufficient evidentiary support and lack of factual findings, while affirming other issues.
The court reversed the child support determination, tax credit transfer, non-covered medical expense allocation, and attorney's fees award due to lack of record support and insufficient factual findings. The court affirmed all other issues raised on appeal.
[1] A trial court's determination of child support must be reversed when there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the calculation of federal tax liability used…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding a federal dependency tax credit without sufficient factual findings and evidence to support the transfer.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court's determination of a party's net income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard required for child support calculations based on net income.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a paternity determination with disputes over child support calculation, allocation of the federal dependency tax credit, responsibil…
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 Income cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Lucinda Lynn Chaney, appeals portions of an order determining paternity, awarding custody, and calculating child support. Due to lack of record support and lack of factual findings, we re*45verse the trial court’s determination of child support, the transfer of the federal dependency tax credit, the distribution of the child’s non-covered medical expenses, and the award of attorney’s fees. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal without further discussion.
A trial court’s determination of a party’s net income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. McCants v. McCants, 984 So.2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The court determines a party’s net income by subtracting the statutorily allowable deductions, such as a deduction for federal tax liability, from each party’s gross monthly income. Id.; § 61.30(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). In this case, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the number the court used for each party’s federal tax liability. Because the minimum child support need is calculated based on the parties’ combined net income, the court’s determination of child support must be reversed.
The court’s determination of child support is also reversed because it is unclear from the record whether the court considered the impact of transferring the federal dependency tax credit on the award of child support. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 835 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Due to the lack of factual findings and evidence to support the transfer of the dependency tax credit, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the dependency tax credit to Appellee, Brent Freeman Fife. Id. On remand, the court must set out sufficient findings on these issues to support its rulings. The court may receive any additional evidence deemed necessary for the proper resolution of the issues.
The court also erred in determining that Appellee was only responsible for 75% of the child’s non-covered medical expenses because each parent should be required to pay an amount in accordance with his or her percentage share of child support. § 61.30(8), Fla. Stat. (2007); Salazar v. Salazar, 976 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). On remand, the court is directed to either include the cost of any non-covered medical expenses in the basic child support obligation or to direct the parties to pay the expenses in accordance with their percentage share of child support.
Finally, the court abused its discretion in ordering Appellee to pay $5,000 toward the costs of Appellant’s attorney’s fees. The order does not indicate that the court considered the relative financial resources of the parties in making this award. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 965 So.2d 832, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The order also does not indicate that the court considered any factors to determine whether the amount of the fees or the hours expended were reasonable. See Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So.2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Because the court failed to make factual findings to substantiate its award of attorney’s fees, we reverse and remand with directions for the court to make such findings. Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Saporito v. Saporito, 831 So.2d 697, 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Again, the court may receive any additional evidence deemed necessary for the proper resolution of this issue.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…e awards must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration.6 See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980) (awarding alimony is discretionary but court must determine a spouse’s ability to pay based on his net income); Chaney v. Fife, 18 So. 3d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“A trial court’s determination of a party’s net income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”); § 61.30(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (requiring child support to be calculated based on the parents’ net income). In determ…
-
Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…absent some logically established rationale in the final judgment to the contrary, [they] must be allocated in the same percentage as the child support allocation.” Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763, 764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); accord Chaney v. Fife, 18 So. 3d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also §§ 61.13(l)(b), 61.30(8), Fla. Stat. However, this general rule does not apply here because the record reflects that the parties agreed to split unreimbursed medical expenses equally. The consent final judgment req…
-
George v. George, 93 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…s is the pivotal building block from which all other economic issues flow. A trial court should determine a party’s net income by subtracting statutorily allowable deductions, such as tax deductions, from the party’s monthly income. Chaney v. Fife, 18 So. 3d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Lack of competent, substantial evidence supporting the numbers the court used for a party’s tax liability warrants reversal. Id. (reversing income calculation in child support case because there was no competent, substantial…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Saporito v. Saporito, 831 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Salazar v. Orestes Salazar, 976 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Windom v. State, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 965 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 835 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)