section 61.30 income of each parent in Florida

2014See Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So.2d 1137, 1138-39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also § 61.30(2) (includable income), (3) (allowable deductions), (4)(5) (determination of net income), Fla. Stat. (2012).

2014The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, Florida Statutes, and include the findings in the final judgment. 2 Armour, 15 So.3d at 925 ; see also Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court has the burden to determine the child support amounts based on the evidence presented).

2025“In making an award of child support, the trial court is required to determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and to include findings in the final judgment.” Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

2025See § 61.30(9), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, when awarding child support, “the trial court is required to determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and to include findings in the final judgment.” Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

2022Garcia v. Espinosa, 314 So. 3d 619 , 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and it must include these findings in the final judgment.”); Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So. 3d 699, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 7 61.30, Florida Statutes, and include the findings in the final judgment.”).

2021This requirement stems from the “well-established rule that ‘[c]hild support awards must 6 See Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding trial court should have considered including income earned by husband that was annually contributed by him to his 401K plan, retirement plan, or medical savings account, for purpose of making ability-to-pay alimony calculation because contributions were voluntary and reduced apparent annual income available to husband). 8 be based on competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income.’” Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So.

2021This requirement stems from the “well-established rule that ‘[c]hild support awards must 6 See Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding trial court should have considered including income earned by husband that was annually contributed by him to his 401K plan, retirement plan, or medical savings account, for purpose of making ability-to-pay alimony calculation because contributions were voluntary and reduced apparent annual income available to husband). 8 be based on competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income.’” Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So.

2013See Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So.2d 482, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“[T]here [was] no indication that the trial court considered including the income earned by the Husband that was annually contributed by him to his 401K plan, SERP account, or medical saving account in the calculation of the Husband’s income,” and that “[a]s these payments [were] voluntary contributions (albeit for valid and beneficial purposes) on the part of the Husband, and as they reduce the apparent annual income available to the Husband, they should have been considered by the trial court in making the ability-to-pay ali

2019See Valentine , 42 So.3d at 273 (finding trial court erred by including per diem reimbursements to Husband as part of his monthly income for purposes of calculating his income where there was no evidence they reduced his living expenses); Long , 967 So.2d at 1070 (refusing to include husband's reimbursed business expenses as part of his income not error where there was insufficient evidence at trial for court to determine amount of expenses and how they correlated with his living expenses).

2019See Valentine , 42 So.3d at 273 (finding trial court erred by including per diem reimbursements to Husband as part of his monthly income for purposes of calculating his income where there was no evidence they reduced his living expenses); Long , 967 So.2d at 1070 (refusing to include husband's reimbursed business expenses as part of his income not error where there was insufficient evidence at trial for court to determine amount of expenses and how they correlated with his living expenses).

2019See Valentine , 42 So.3d at 273 (finding trial court erred by including per diem reimbursements to Husband as part of his monthly income for purposes of calculating his income where there was no evidence they reduced his living expenses); Long , 967 So.2d at 1070 (refusing to include husband's reimbursed business expenses as part of his income not error where there was insufficient evidence at trial for court to determine amount of expenses and how they correlated with his living expenses).

2019See Valentine , 42 So.3d at 273 (finding trial court erred by including per diem reimbursements to Husband as part of his monthly income for purposes of calculating his income where there was no evidence they reduced his living expenses); Long , 967 So.2d at 1070 (refusing to include husband's reimbursed business expenses as part of his income not error where there was insufficient evidence at trial for court to determine amount of expenses and how they correlated with his living expenses).

2025See Crumpton v. Crumpton, 443 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (citing Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)) (“A trial court has a duty to decide issues properly before it.”); Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing award of support where trial court failed to determine net income of each parent under section 61.30 and include such findings in its judgment).

2014The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, Florida Statutes, and include the findings in the final judgment. 2 Armour, 15 So.3d at 925 ; see also Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court has the burden to determine the child support amounts based on the evidence presented).

2025See Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bromson v. Dep’t of Revenue, 710 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

1998As the third district explained in Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) this is not imputing income under section 61.30(2)(b), but is simply making a factual determination of the parent's actual income under section 61.30(2)(a).

2025See Silberman v. Silberman, 670 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bromson v. Dep’t of Revenue, 710 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2001However, it is evident to us that, as appellee argues, this is not an imputed income case but, rather, just as in Bromson v. Department of Revenue, 710 So.2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court here made a factual determination of appellant’s actual income.

2008To impute income pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), the trial court must find that "the parent owing a duty of support has the actual ability to earn more than he or she is currently earning, and that he or she is deliberately refusing to work at that higher capacity to avoid support obligations." Stebbins, 754 So.2d at 907 ; Smith, 872 So.2d at 398 .

2004To impute income pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), "the trial judge must find that the parent owing a duty of support has the actual ability to earn more than he or she is currently earning, and that he or she is deliberately refusing to return to work at that higher capacity to avoid support obligations." Stebbins v. Stebbins, 754 So.2d 903, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

2025See Crumpton v. Crumpton, 443 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (citing Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)) (“A trial court has a duty to decide issues properly before it.”); Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing award of support where trial court failed to determine net income of each parent under section 61.30 and include such findings in its judgment).

2025See Crumpton v. Crumpton, 443 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (citing Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)) (“A trial court has a duty to decide issues properly before it.”); Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing award of support where trial court failed to determine net income of each parent under section 61.30 and include such findings in its judgment).

2025A trier of fact may find that a party earns more than claimed based on testimony and credibility; that is a present-income finding, even if the order uses the word “impute.” Newman v. Newman, 221 So. 3d 642, 644-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

2022Garcia v. Espinosa, 314 So. 3d 619 , 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and it must include these findings in the final judgment.”); Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So. 3d 699, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The trial court must determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 7 61.30, Florida Statutes, and include the findings in the final judgment.”).

2021This requirement stems from the “well-established rule that ‘[c]hild support awards must 6 See Geoghegan v. Geoghegan, 969 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding trial court should have considered including income earned by husband that was annually contributed by him to his 401K plan, retirement plan, or medical savings account, for purpose of making ability-to-pay alimony calculation because contributions were voluntary and reduced apparent annual income available to husband). 8 be based on competent, substantial evidence of a party’s net income.’” Van Exter v. Diodonet-Molina, 152 So.

2019See Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court erred by failing to consider automobile benefits paid on behalf of the former husband as income under section 61.30(2)(a)(13)).

2018Leonard v. Leonard, 971 So. 2d 263, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

2016See Fuesy v. Fuesy, 64 So.3d 151, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“Although for purposes of calculating child support, mandatory retirement payments are included as allowable deductions under section 61.30(3)(d), voluntary retirement payments are not.”); Moore v. Moore, 120 So.3d 194, 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“[I]t is apparent that neither the 401(k) contribution nor the health savings account qualifies as an authorized deduction for calculation of net income under section 61.30(3), Florida Statutes (2011).”).

2016See Fuesy v. Fuesy, 64 So.3d 151, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“Although for purposes of calculating child support, mandatory retirement payments are included as allowable deductions under section 61.30(3)(d), voluntary retirement payments are not.”); Moore v. Moore, 120 So.3d 194, 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“[I]t is apparent that neither the 401(k) contribution nor the health savings account qualifies as an authorized deduction for calculation of net income under section 61.30(3), Florida Statutes (2011).”).

2015See also Robinson v. Robinson, 657 So.2d 958, 960 (Flá. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that high cost of living of parent residing in California may be a valid' factor in deviating from child support-guidelines). .

2008See Zold, 911 So.2d at 1231-33 (concluding that whereas undistributed pass-through income retained by a corporation for corporate purposes does not constitute income within the meaning of chapter 61, "where undistributed `pass-through' income has been retained for noncorporate purposes, such as to shield this income from the reach of the other spouse during dissolution, the improper motive for its retention makes it available `income' under section 61.046(7) or `business income' under section 61.30(2)(a)(3).") The trial court concluded that a presumed income of $17,000 per year for the husband