Smith v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Threadgill v. Nishimura (fladistctapp, 2017-06-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Threadgill v. Nishimura
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the court was required to calculate his income based on his business income, defined as “gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income.” Smith v. Smith, 575 So.2d 228, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (quoting In re Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure, 536 So.2d 974, 987 (Fla. 1988)); see also § 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (defining business income as “gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income,” for the purposes of gross income calculations in determining child support).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newman v. Newman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Mills v. Mills, 62 So.3d 672, 675-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing and remanding an alimony determination because “the trial court did not include the value of the former husband’s business income or the value of in kind payments made on his behalf when it determined the former husband’s ability to pa/’); Smith v. Smith, 575 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (trial court erred when making its ability to pay determination by not considering all sources of income available to husband).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mills v. Mills
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So.2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA *676 2002); Jones v. Jones, 679 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Smith v. Smith, 575 So.2d 228, 228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Dep't of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So.2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cozier v. Cozier, 819 So.2d 834, 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jones v. Jones, 679 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Smith v. Smith, 575 So.2d 228, 228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yangco v. Yangco (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
In Smith v. Smith, 575 So.2d 228, 228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), this court recognized that the trial court is to consider "both salary and business income" in determining a spouse's need or ability to pay.
Josie H. SMITH
v.
James L. SMITH and James L. Smith, D.O., P.A.
No. 90-00811.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan 25, 1991.
575 So. 2d 228
Mark H. Gibbons of Melendi, Gibbons & Holsonback, P.A., Tampa, for appellant., Mark P. Kelly of Freeman, Lopez & Kelly, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
Frank, Parker, Ryder.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Josie H. Smith challenges the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage regarding the determination of the amount that James L. Smith is able to pay her alimony. We reverse that portion of the final judgment concerning the amount of alimony, and affirm the remainder of the judgment.

James is the sole employee, officer, director and shareholder of James L. Smith, D.O., P.A. He is an anesthesiologist. James’ expert in accounting testified that the average gross income of the P.A. for the past four years was $360,000.00 per year. Josie testified that during the parties’ marriage they enjoyed a nice life-style spending $20,000.00 a month on living expenses.

The financial affidavit form, as prescribed by our supreme court, contains a space for entry of “[bjusiness income from sources such as self-employment ... [and/or] close corporations ... (gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income).” In re Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure, 536 So.2d 974, 987 (Fla.1988). The financial affidavits filed by James during the course of the dissolution proceedings represented “business income” to be approximately $13,000.00 to $14,000.00 per month, representing the amount of James’ salary which he received from the business. It is clear from'the financial affidavit form, as amended, that the supreme court intended both salary and business income (if applicable) to be disclosed and taken into con[*229] sideration by the trial court in determining a spouse’s need or ability to pay, as the case may be.

Because James’ financial affidavit did not disclose information concerning his “business income” as defined on the form (gross receipts minus expenses), we find error as the trial court did not consider funds from this source in determining the amount of alimony to award Josie. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for a redetermination by the trial court of James’ ability to pay alimony. Upon remand, accounts receivable versus monies actually collected by the business should be taken into consideration in arriving at the “business income” figure disclosed in the financial affidavit.

With regard to the issue raised concerning the trial court’s consideration of taxes on alimony, we invite the trial court to proceed under the teachings of Lutgert v. Lutgert, 362 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 1125 (Fla.1979).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.