In calculating alimony, are business expenses deducted from a party's monthly income? This question was answered by the Florida Court of Appeal in the recent case of Moore v. Moore. For purposes of awarding alimony, in calculating a party's monthly income, business expenses must be deducted from the party's gross income. In this case, the husband appealed a final judgment in a dissolution matter. The husband argued on appeal that the lower court erred in determining his monthly income and the amount of alimony he was required to pay to his wife. The wife filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the lower court erred in failing to order her husband to maintain a life insurance policy and in determining the amount of child support. The Court of Appeal decided that the lower court abused its discretion in determining the husband's monthly income because the trial court failed to consider his business expenses, and they reversed the final judgment involving alimony and child support. The Court of Appeal looked to section 61.046(8), Florida Statutes (2010), which defines "income" as any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source, including, but not limited to: wages, salary, commissions and bonuses, compensation as an independent contractor, worker's compensation, disability benefits, annuity and retirement benefits, pensions, dividends, interest, royalties, trusts, and any other payments, made by any person, private entity, federal or state government, or any unit of local government."
Child Relocation In Boynton Beach, Florida
In a child relocation case, the parent with substantial time-sharing and the parent who does not have substantial time-sharing are both required to seek court permission before relocating. In Brooks v. Brooks the trial court ordered the Father to file a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001 when he moved from Sarasota to Hallandale Beach. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The Florida Court of Appeal reasoned that when Chapter 61 was rewritten in 2008, the legislature moved away from terms such as "primary residential parent" and "nonresidential parent." Instead, the legislature adopted terminology such as "time-sharing". Section 61.13001(3) requires a parent seeking relocation to file a petition to relocate. Relocation is defined by section 61.13001(1)(e) as 'a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent...from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing." Since this definition excludes any reference to the relocating parent being the primary residential parent, the lower court ordered the Father to file a relocation petition before moving.
