OSCAR MANTILLA
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM
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.
Oscar Mantilla appeals an administrative child support order in which the administrative law judge imputed income to him without adequate evidentiary support. The Department of Revenue conceded error, and the court agrees that the income imputation lacks competent substantial evidence.
The court reversed the administrative orders because the imputation of income was unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Income determinations for child support obligations must be grounded in competent substantial evidence rather than speculative or future-based assumptions.
[1] Imputation of income in a child support determination must be supported by competent substantial evidence; an unsupported imputation constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 income for purposes of establishing support obligations must be supported by competent substantial evidence.”
The court citing Waldera v. Waldera for the standard applicable to income determinations in support cases.
An administrative law judge issued a final child support and income deduction order against Mantilla. The judge calculated Mantilla's child support ob…
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 Imputation Of Income For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Oscar Mantilla appeals from a final administrative support order and income deduction order issued by an administrative law judge in State of Florida’s Division of Administrative Hearings.
On appeal, Mantilla contends that, in calculating the child support obligation, the administrative law judge abused his discretion in imputing income to Mantilla without any substantial competent evidence to support such an imputation.
Appellee, Department of Revenue, properly and commendably concedes error and, upon our own review of the record, we agree that the imputation of income is unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
See Waldera v. Waldera, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1838, 2020 WL 4495317 at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2020) (stating: “A trial court’s determination of a party’s income for purposes of establishing support obligations must be supported by competent substantial evidence.” (quoting Sallaberry v. Sallaberry, 27 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). See also Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (observing: “Judgments providing for automatic changes in alimony and support payments upon future occurrences have usually been disapproved because of the lack of an evidentiary basis for the determination of future events. It follows that a dissolution judgment which purports to consider future events as a basis for establishing current alimony and child support must suffer a similar fate”) (citing Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)).
We therefore reverse the orders on review and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mantilla v. Dep't of Revenue, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Sallaberry v. Sallaberry, 27 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Mantilla v. Dep't of Revenue, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)