Sohacki v. Sohacki, 94-2630
| Citation | 657 So.2d 41 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2630,94-2630 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1519 Janet Marie SOHACKI, Wife/Appellant, v. Thomas John SOHACKI, Husband/Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Ned I. Price of Lewis, Price & Leitman, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Donald E. Brown and Nancy Nowlis of Zisser, Robison, Brown & Nowlis, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.
This cause is before us on Janet Sohacki's ("Mother") appeal from an order denying her petition to increase Thomas Sohacki's ("Father") child support obligation, as well as her request for attorney's fees. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of these issues, as the trial court apparently felt bound to accept Father's undisputed testimony that he received only approximately $45,000 in salary and distributions from his Subchapter S corporation, although the corporation generated approximately $100,000, which Father claimed and paid taxes on on his personal tax return. See Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1312 (Fla.1991).
Moreover, we reverse outright that portion of the order decreasing Father's child support obligation, insofar as Father never petitioned for such a decrease, and all proceedings below revolved around Mother's petition for an increase in Father's child support obligation. Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So.2d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (); Herman v. Herman, 565 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ().
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flint v. Fortson
...a downward modification was not properly before the court. See Wynn v. Wynn, 727 So.2d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment modifying the child support and remand to the trial court wi......
-
Zold v. Zold
...5th DCA 2004), which expressly and directly conflicts with Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We have jurisdiction.1 The conflict issue is whether "pass-th......
-
Martinez v. Martinez, 97-3472.
...support. See § 61.046(4), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.08(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA As his final issue, and related to the latter issue, the former husband co......
-
Alexander v. Alexander, 96-1810
...the trial court erred in requiring Williams to pay child support and in entering the income deduction order. See also, Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);Florida Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Burns, 654 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA Further, we conclude t......
-
What defines income under F.S. Ch. 61: from a business perspective.
...which he started and developed during the marriage. The court cited F.S. 61.0464 [subsection], 61.082g, 61.302a; Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); and Zipperer v. Zipperer, 567 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Zipperer, the First District Court of Appeal rejected the ......