From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nunez v. Nunez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 5, 1994
646 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 93-2895.

December 5, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Alachua County, W.O. Beauchamp, J.

Margaret Blowers Anderson, Gainesville, for appellant.

Allison E. Folds of Watson, Folds, Steadham, Christmann, Brashear, Tovkach Walker, Gainesville, for appellee.


Jorge Nunez appeals a final dissolution judgment that dissolves his marriage to Margie Nunez, equitably distributes their assets and liabilities, and awards child support. Mr. Nunez contends that in awarding child support, the trial court erred in imputing about $70 per month of income to him without setting forth findings of facts upon which it based the imputation. The final judgment recites the following in support of the child support award:

3. That for child support calculation purposes, the husband's imputed income is 50% of total net income of $2,580. . . .

Because this finding fails to meet the requirements of subsection 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), we reverse the award of child support and remand this cause for entry of the findings required by statute to support any imputation of income. Wollschlager v. Veal, 601 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Neal v. Meek, 591 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Levine v. Best, 595 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nunez v. Nunez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 5, 1994
646 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Nunez v. Nunez

Case Details

Full title:JORGE NUNEZ, APPELLANT, v. MARGIE E. NUNEZ, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 5, 1994

Citations

646 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Strickland v. Strickland

Further, remand is also necessary for the lower court to make findings of fact to support its decision to…

Lee v. Lee

It is error for a court to impute income without making the necessary findings under section 61.30(2)(b).…