Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0161 Lower Tribunal No. 22-712-FC-04 ________________
Angela Caycedo Osman, Appellant,
vs.
Nelson Enrique Caycedo Osman, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Law Office of Brandon A. Rotbart, P.A., and Brandon A. Rotbart, for appellant.
Law Office of Madelin Diaz, P.A., Madelin Diaz, and Christine M. Alvarez (Davie), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J. In this contentious family dispute, the mother, appellant, Angela
Caycedo Osman, challenges a final judgment of paternity awarding
timesharing, child support, and parental responsibility and an order denying
rehearing on the same. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm the final judgment in all respects, save that aspect
awarding 2024 and ongoing child support.
BACKGROUND
The parties wed in Tampa in 2013, and they now have a six-year-old
child in common. When the child was eight months old, the mother moved
to Miami. There she twice successfully petitioned the courts for the entry of
domestic violence injunctions against the father.
In early 2022, the mother filed a verified petition for paternity. The
father answered the petition. Years of litigation culminated in two
appointments: (1) a special master to monitor and facilitate discovery; and
(2) a general magistrate to render temporary support recommendations.
The special master conducted multiple hearings directed at compelling
the father to furnish disclosures and documentation relating to his finances.
The inquiry focused primarily on his three businesses, Cosman’s Auto Sales,
Inc., Auto Group Financial Services, Inc., and Cosman’s Realty
Management, Inc. The father did not fully comply with discovery demands,
2 and the special master ultimately found that he was uncooperative and
intentionally delayed the proceedings over a three-year period. The special
master further found that his claims relating to his income were not credible
and consequently ordered him to pay all expenses arising out of the
discovery proceedings.
The general magistrate similarly noted contradictions in the father’s
testimony. One example was that he disavowed any ownership interest in
Cosman’s Auto Sales, yet he simultaneously listed the corporation’s debt as
his personal debt on one financial affidavit. But because the mother failed
to provide any concrete proof of income due to the lack of documentation,
the general magistrate was “relegated to using the parties’ net incomes from
their financial affidavits at th[at] point to determine temporary child support.”
The magistrate also ordered the father to advance the mother funds for a
forensic accountant.
The parties eventually proceeded to a nonjury trial. By that time, the
father had filed six financial affidavits. The first stated he was self-employed,
the next two attested he was the office manager at Cosman’s Realty
Management, and the final three claimed he was an Uber driver.
At trial, the mother and her forensic accountant both testified that the
father’s three businesses produced a far greater revenue stream than that
3 reflected in the financial affidavits. The forensic accountant opined that the
father had gross earnings of at least $141,000 for 2021 and $205,000 in
2023. He arrived at his opinion by projecting rental income and other
business-related income, as derived from average revenue and account
deposits.
The father did not present a forensic expert. He instead claimed he
was employed as an Uber driver and that Cosman’s Auto Sales was titled in
his name only because it was originally formed to procure his brother legal
status through the EB-5 Visa Program. Once his brother’s visa expired, he
contended, he retitled the company in his name as a mere formality.
The trial court issued a carefully reasoned order, discrediting the
father’s testimony. The court found that the father lied about his Uber
employment in order to conceal his actual earnings and imputed income for
the years 2021 and 2023. For 2022, the court deferred to the general
magistrate’s findings. But in awarding 2024 and ongoing support, the trial
court relied upon the father’s purported Uber earnings, as verified in his most
recent financial affidavit, along with personal deposits. The court did not
consider business income. A timely motion for rehearing proved
unsuccessful. This appeal ensued.
4 STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s order imputing income and determining child
support for an abuse of discretion. See Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237,
239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2004)). Consistent with this standard, we must examine whether
competent, substantial evidence supports the ruling. See id. at 239–40
(citing Richardson v. Richardson, 442 So. 2d 1005, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA
1983)).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In determining monthly income for each parent, section 61.30(2),
Florida Statutes (2025), requires the trial court to consider business income.
See § 61.30(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. The statute further authorizes the imputation
of income based upon specific factual findings. See id. § 61.30(2)(b).
Indeed, “a court must impute income to an unemployed or underemployed
parent ‘if such unemployment or underemployment is found by the court to
be voluntary on that parent’s part, absent a finding of fact by the court of
physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent
has no control.’” A.A. v. M.A., 396 So. 3d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
(quoting § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat.).
5 Florida courts have long recognized that self-employed spouses,
unlike salaried employees, have significant control over their income. See
Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “Their testimony,
tax returns, and business records accordingly may not reflect their true
earnings, earning capability, and net worth.” Id.
This principle applies with even more force when a spouse fails to
comply with discovery orders or withholds relevant financial information. See
Nadrich v. Nadrich, 936 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Under the
circumstances and in light of the husband’s failure to comply with many
discovery orders to disclose his financial information, the court had no choice
but to impute some amount of income to the husband beyond what his pay
stubs showed.”); Martinez v. Martinez, 995 So. 2d 1091, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA
2008) (“There is no competent and substantial evidence to support the trial
court’s determination of child support. The record reflects that the husband
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0161 Lower Tribunal No. 22-712-FC-04 ________________
Angela Caycedo Osman, Appellant,
vs.
Nelson Enrique Caycedo Osman, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Law Office of Brandon A. Rotbart, P.A., and Brandon A. Rotbart, for appellant.
Law Office of Madelin Diaz, P.A., Madelin Diaz, and Christine M. Alvarez (Davie), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J. In this contentious family dispute, the mother, appellant, Angela
Caycedo Osman, challenges a final judgment of paternity awarding
timesharing, child support, and parental responsibility and an order denying
rehearing on the same. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm the final judgment in all respects, save that aspect
awarding 2024 and ongoing child support.
BACKGROUND
The parties wed in Tampa in 2013, and they now have a six-year-old
child in common. When the child was eight months old, the mother moved
to Miami. There she twice successfully petitioned the courts for the entry of
domestic violence injunctions against the father.
In early 2022, the mother filed a verified petition for paternity. The
father answered the petition. Years of litigation culminated in two
appointments: (1) a special master to monitor and facilitate discovery; and
(2) a general magistrate to render temporary support recommendations.
The special master conducted multiple hearings directed at compelling
the father to furnish disclosures and documentation relating to his finances.
The inquiry focused primarily on his three businesses, Cosman’s Auto Sales,
Inc., Auto Group Financial Services, Inc., and Cosman’s Realty
Management, Inc. The father did not fully comply with discovery demands,
2 and the special master ultimately found that he was uncooperative and
intentionally delayed the proceedings over a three-year period. The special
master further found that his claims relating to his income were not credible
and consequently ordered him to pay all expenses arising out of the
discovery proceedings.
The general magistrate similarly noted contradictions in the father’s
testimony. One example was that he disavowed any ownership interest in
Cosman’s Auto Sales, yet he simultaneously listed the corporation’s debt as
his personal debt on one financial affidavit. But because the mother failed
to provide any concrete proof of income due to the lack of documentation,
the general magistrate was “relegated to using the parties’ net incomes from
their financial affidavits at th[at] point to determine temporary child support.”
The magistrate also ordered the father to advance the mother funds for a
forensic accountant.
The parties eventually proceeded to a nonjury trial. By that time, the
father had filed six financial affidavits. The first stated he was self-employed,
the next two attested he was the office manager at Cosman’s Realty
Management, and the final three claimed he was an Uber driver.
At trial, the mother and her forensic accountant both testified that the
father’s three businesses produced a far greater revenue stream than that
3 reflected in the financial affidavits. The forensic accountant opined that the
father had gross earnings of at least $141,000 for 2021 and $205,000 in
2023. He arrived at his opinion by projecting rental income and other
business-related income, as derived from average revenue and account
deposits.
The father did not present a forensic expert. He instead claimed he
was employed as an Uber driver and that Cosman’s Auto Sales was titled in
his name only because it was originally formed to procure his brother legal
status through the EB-5 Visa Program. Once his brother’s visa expired, he
contended, he retitled the company in his name as a mere formality.
The trial court issued a carefully reasoned order, discrediting the
father’s testimony. The court found that the father lied about his Uber
employment in order to conceal his actual earnings and imputed income for
the years 2021 and 2023. For 2022, the court deferred to the general
magistrate’s findings. But in awarding 2024 and ongoing support, the trial
court relied upon the father’s purported Uber earnings, as verified in his most
recent financial affidavit, along with personal deposits. The court did not
consider business income. A timely motion for rehearing proved
unsuccessful. This appeal ensued.
4 STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s order imputing income and determining child
support for an abuse of discretion. See Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237,
239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2004)). Consistent with this standard, we must examine whether
competent, substantial evidence supports the ruling. See id. at 239–40
(citing Richardson v. Richardson, 442 So. 2d 1005, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA
1983)).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In determining monthly income for each parent, section 61.30(2),
Florida Statutes (2025), requires the trial court to consider business income.
See § 61.30(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. The statute further authorizes the imputation
of income based upon specific factual findings. See id. § 61.30(2)(b).
Indeed, “a court must impute income to an unemployed or underemployed
parent ‘if such unemployment or underemployment is found by the court to
be voluntary on that parent’s part, absent a finding of fact by the court of
physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent
has no control.’” A.A. v. M.A., 396 So. 3d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
(quoting § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat.).
5 Florida courts have long recognized that self-employed spouses,
unlike salaried employees, have significant control over their income. See
Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “Their testimony,
tax returns, and business records accordingly may not reflect their true
earnings, earning capability, and net worth.” Id.
This principle applies with even more force when a spouse fails to
comply with discovery orders or withholds relevant financial information. See
Nadrich v. Nadrich, 936 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Under the
circumstances and in light of the husband’s failure to comply with many
discovery orders to disclose his financial information, the court had no choice
but to impute some amount of income to the husband beyond what his pay
stubs showed.”); Martinez v. Martinez, 995 So. 2d 1091, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA
2008) (“There is no competent and substantial evidence to support the trial
court’s determination of child support. The record reflects that the husband
neither cooperated with the court in the court’s attempt to determine his true
income nor did the husband introduce evidence that would lead to an
accurate computation of his income level.”).
“[T]he Florida Supreme Court and other district courts have suggested
that a presumption arises from a spouse[’]s historical earnings that supports
a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount, absent evidence
6 to the contrary.” Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007);
see Waldera v. Waldera, 306 So. 3d 1037, 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[W]e
simply hold that, since the former husband’s historical annual income gave
rise to the presumption that he could continue to earn an amount higher than
what was ultimately determined by the court, and no explanation or
competent, substantial evidence sufficiently rebutted that inference, the trial
court necessarily abused its discretion in making a contrary finding.”).
Here, the trial court expressly rejected the father’s testimony as to his
Uber employment and instead relied on the forensic expert’s testimony in
computing support for 2021 and 2023. See Moquin v. Bergeron, 338 So. 3d
918, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (forensic accountant’s testimony may rise to
the level of competent, substantial evidence). But in calculating 2024 and
ongoing support, the trial court incongruously relied on the same Uber
earnings it previously rejected and further restricted its consideration to
personal deposits, as opposed to the holistic indicia of business revenue.
Because we cannot reconcile these findings, we are constrained to reverse,
in part, and remand for the trial court to recalculate 2024 and ongoing
support.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.