Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED AIXA LEBRON CRESPO, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-315 RUBEN A. LEBRON, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed March 29, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Mike Murphy, Judge. Michelle P. Smith, of Law Office of Michelle P. Smith, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Harold Deon Thompson, of DeNovo Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CUR
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED AIXA LEBRON CRESPO, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-315 RUBEN A. LEBRON, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed March 29, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Mike Murphy, Judge. Michelle P. Smith, of Law Office of Michelle P. Smith, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Harold Deon Thompson, of DeNovo Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CURI..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
AIXA LEBRON CRESPO,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-315
RUBEN A. LEBRON,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 29, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Mike Murphy, Judge.
Michelle P. Smith, of Law Office of Michelle
P. Smith, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Harold Deon Thompson, of DeNovo Law,
P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Former Wife appeals a final judgment determining child support and a child support
arrearage. At trial, the parties presented evidence that Former Husband has several
sources of income, including a Federal Bureau of Prisons salary, rental income, and
Veterans Administration living expense reimbursement and disability benefits. There was
also evidence that Former Husband owns and operates a batting cage business, which
he testified actually lost money during the relevant time period. As a result, he argued
that these business losses should be subtracted from his other sources of income when
calculating his total gross income. However, Former Husband testified in conclusory
fashion, and did not establish the business losses by competent, substantial evidence.
See § 61.30(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (2014) (defining “business income” as “gross receipts minus
ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income”). Even still, it appears
that the trial court included some amount of business losses when calculating Former
Husband’s total income. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial
court to recalculate child support and the child support arrearage without subtracting
business losses from Former Husband’s other sources of income.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2