Department of Revenue v. Cody

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Revenue v. Cody

131 So. 3d 823, 2014 WL 482374, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-2475

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 So. 3d 823 (Department of Revenue v. Cody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Revenue v. Cody, 131 So. 3d 823, 2014 WL 482374, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a Final Administrative Support Order by the Department of Revenue on behalf of Shemata S. Walker. The order was rendered on May 17, 2013, and erroneously allowed Sedrick L. Cody a deduction from his gross income for a pri- or child support order that he was not paying. Section 61.30(3)(f) provides that “[c]ourt-ordered support for other children which is actually paid” is an allowable deduction from gross income for purposes of calculating net income available for child support. § 61.30(3), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). See also Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing child support calculation which included a deduction for court-ordered support where no evidence was presented that the husband was currently paying that obligation); Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So.2d 487-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“The language of 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”).

Until and unless Cody actually pays his child support for his other child, he is not permitted a deduction. We REVERSE and REMAND for a recalculation of the child support guidelines.

BENTON, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a Final Administrative Support Order by the Department of Revenue on behalf of Shemata S. Walker. The order was rendered on May 17, 2013, and erroneously allowed Sedrick L. Cody a deduction from his gross income for a pri- or child support order that he was not paying. Section 61.30(3)(f) provides that “[c]ourt-ordered support for other children which is actually paid” is an allowable deduction from gross income for purposes of calculating net income available for child support. § 61.30(3), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). See also Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So.2d 867, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing child support calculation which included a deduction for court-ordered support where no evidence was presented that the husband was currently paying that obligation); Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So.2d 487-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“The language of 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”).

Until and unless Cody actually pays his child support for his other child, he is not permitted a deduction. We REVERSE and REMAND for a recalculation of the child support guidelines.

BENTON, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 3d 823, 2014 WL 482374, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-revenue-v-cody-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack