In
the case of Palumbo v. Butler, 26 So.3d 723 (Fla.
2nd DCA 2010), the appellate court ruled that is was :
ERROR TO INCLUDE IN HUSBAND'S
INCOME FOR PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT, ANTICIPATED ANNUAL FINANCIAL
GIFTS WHICH HUSBAND'S MOTHER HAD HISTORICALLY MADE TO MINOR CHILDREN FOR THEIR
EDUCATION.
The trial judge
added $22,000 per year to the husband's income to calculate his child support
obligation. The court reasoned that these gifts were regular and would
continue. The District Court reversed:
1. "[The
husband]…does not control his mother's largesse. His mother testified that she
anticipated making future gifts, depending on the economy, her health, and her
family needs."
2. "In past
years, she gave the children's money directly to [the husband], earmarking it
for school tuition. But, well before the final hearing, she began paying the
school directly."
3. "On the
record before us, [the wife] properly concedes that the anticipated gifts
should not have been included with Mr. Butler's income."
The reasoning for this is that grandparents can change their mind at any
time regarding their gifts. They could
have a financial emergency, medical emergency, or simply decide to spend some
of their own money. The parent paying
child support would be caught in a "trap" requiring him to pay support
from income he doesn't receive.
Hopefully, grandparents will help pay for schooling, but that is a
personal choice that the courts can't get involved it. If every case was micromanaged, the courts
could not function in a efficient manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment