JEREMY MCVICKER
v.
JEANIE MCVICKER
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.
A trial court must make specific findings that income termination was voluntary and that underemployment resulted from less than diligent efforts to find comparable employment before imputing income in a dissolution case.
[1] Before imputing income to an unemployed or underemployed spouse in a dissolution of marriage action, a trial court must make findings that the termination of income was v…
[2] In determining the amount of income to impute for alimony and child support purposes, a trial court must consider the spouse's recent work history, occupational qualifica…
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 intelligence“Trial courts can impute income to an unemployed or underemployed spouse, but they must make the following findings: first, that any 'termination of income was voluntary'; and second, that the spouse's underemployment was owing to 'less than diligent and bona fide efforts to find employment paying income at a level equal to or better than that formerly received.'”
Court's statement of the legal standard for imputing income, citing Frerking v. Stacy, 266 So. 3d 273, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Jeremy McVicker appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Jeanie McVicker, challenging the trial court's imputation of nearly $72,000 in an…
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 Child Support Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JEREMY MCVICKER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2768
JEANIE MCVICKER,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed August 28, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.
Kenneth C. Gallagher, of Law Office of Kenneth C. Gallagher, LLC, Orlando, for Appellant.
Nicholas A. Shannin and Carol B. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
Jeremy McVicker, the former husband, appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Jeanie McVicker, the former wife. The former husband contends the trial
It has long been the law in Florida that when imputing income, the trial court must make appropriate findings. For instance, we recently wrote in Frerking v. Stacy, 266 So. 3d 273, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019): Trial courts can impute income to an unemployed or underemployed spouse, but they must make the following findings: first, that any “termination of income was voluntary”; and second, that the spouse’s underemployment was owing to “less than diligent and bona fide efforts to find employment paying income at a level equal to or better than that formerly received.” Schram v. Schram, 932 So. 2d 245, 249–50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So. 2d 440, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). The burden of proving underemployment rests with the party moving for imputation. Andrews v. Andrews, 867 So. 2d 476, 478 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
When imputing income, trial courts must consider the spouse’s “recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community.” § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018); see Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Borrowing from this [child support] statute, the courts consider the same factors in determining the amount to impute for alimony awards and attorney’s fees.”); see also Broga v. Broga, 166 So. 3d 183, 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“For purposes of alimony awards, courts reviewing imputation of income have applied the same factors as those applied to imputing income for child support.” (quoting Gray v. Gray, 103 So. 3d 962, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012))).
Before imputing income, a trial court must make a finding that the party has not used its best efforts to secure income “at a level equal to or better than that formerly received.” Schram, 932 So. 2d at 249–50. A party’s best efforts to find work “do not include retraining, but only finding a job for which one is already qualified.” Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
1The former husband preserved the issue for appeal by filing a timely and specific motion for rehearing.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2 The record before this Court does not contain transcripts of the evidentiary portion of the dissolution hearing. However, because the errors of law are apparent on the face of the judgment, our review of those matters was not thwarted. See Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stavros Konsoulas v. Konsoulas, 904 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 867 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Fortune v. Pantin, 851 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Gray v. Gray, 103 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Eroga v. Eroga, 166 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)