Alon v. Alon, 94-3549

• Decision Date: 03 January 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-3549,94-3549
• Citation: 665 So.2d 1110
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D92 Joseph ALON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Dina ALON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1110

665 So.2d 1110

21 Fla. L. Weekly D92

Joseph ALON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Dina ALON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 94-3549.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Jan. 3, 1996.

Brenda Di Ioia of Brenda Di Ioia, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Howard W. Poznanski, Tamarac, for appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution except for the award of child support which we reverse and remand for reconsideration.

When imputing income, the trial court must set forth factual findings concerning the probable and potential earnings level, source of imputed and actual income, and adjustments to income. Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). A wife should not be penalized for the lack of full disclosure by a husband, as established in Klein v. Klein, 122 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), nor should children. At the same time, the basis for imputing income and the amount thereof must be supported by the evidence. In the instant case, the trial court began its analysis by observing that in the most recent tax return the couple posted an adjusted gross income of $26,000, which would work out to $2,166.67 a month. It found the amount to be "highly understated," and went on to find, initially, that the minimum net income of the parties was $2,900 per month. Subsequently, the trial court imputed $1,625 of net income to appellant after ultimately finding the couples' combined net income was $2,500 per month, and subtracting appellee's monthly net income of $875.

There are several problems with the trial court's analysis. First, it fails to specifically set forth the source of appellant's imputed income. The trial court obviously felt appellant had resources, but did not delineate them as the basis for imputed income. The reference to appellant's income from his brief employment at Eden Foods was used by the trial court to support its figure, but the trial court compared gross income from that job to its imputed net income figure, which is like comparing apples and oranges. Second, the trial court imputed net income for appellant without first imputing a gross income. Moss v. Moss, 636 So.2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The net income should have been imputed "only after taking the allowable deductions from an imputed gross income figure as provided in section 61.30(3), Florida Statutes (1991)." Id. at 165. Third, the trial court did not justify its initial finding of a minimum net income of $2,900 for the couple, and we fail to find any support for it in the record.

There are other problems with the trial court's award of child support. The trial court found the school expense to be $300 per month, rather than $200, and based its calculations on such. Also, the trial court made appellant responsible...