Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
If a court imputes income to a parent in a Florida child custody case for gifts that parent receives from third parties, there must be specific findings made to support this conclusion. This was an issue in the case Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, 3D24-0712 (Fla. 3d DCA August 13, 2025).
In this paternity case, the parties returned to court for post-judgment litigation. The mother claimed the father was in a superior financial position and that he was using the disparity in the parties’ incomes to harass her and to spur vexatious litigation. The trial court made a finding that the father received regular gifts of money from third parties which were not loans, which were unlimited, and which he could rely on for income. Based on this, the court awarded almost $80,000 in temporary fees and costs to the mother. The father appealed.
The appellate court agreed with the father that the order on review did not include review of competent substantial evidence. The appellate court held “Both the trial court’s oral pronouncements and written order are devoid of factual findings to support its determination as to need and ability to pay, thereby not allowing meaningful appellate review. At best, the trial court’s only factual finding as to the Father’s ability to pay is based, in part, on the trial court imputing income to the Father. In doing so, the trial court, in a conclusory fashion, determined that the Father will be able to obtain ‘without limitation’ and ‘on demand’ sufficient funds from his family and friends to pay the amounts awarded to the Mother. The trial court, however, did not make any findings to support its conclusion, once again not allowing this Court to engage in a meaningful review of the trial court’s order.”
The father also challenged the trial court’s failure to make a finding that the mother’s claimed fees were reasonable. The appellate court agreed, holding “The Father’s argument has merit [. . .] In addition to the lack of findings as to the number of reasonable hours and reasonable hourly rate, the trial court failed to address the Father’s argument as to ‘block billing’ and charges for clerical work. Thus, we also reverse the order under review on this basis and remand with instructions for the trial court to make specific findings as to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees requested by the Mother.”
The court concluded “Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand as stated in this opinion. On remand, the trial court is to rely solely on the testimony and evidence presented during the two-day hearing. Further, the trial court may reconsider its conclusions based on its specific findings of facts. We take no position as to any factual finding or conclusion.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.