Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support
When a parent in a Florida child support case is self-employed, the court usually takes a careful look at the parent’s earning ability and weighs credibility. This was an issue in the case Osman v. Osman, 3D25-0161 (Fla. 3d DCA February 25, 2026).
During litigation, the father was found to be uncooperative in the discovery process. He also gave contradicting testimony as to his ownership interest in a corporate entity. By the time of trial, he filed a financial affidavit which stated he was a rideshare driver and he testified that he was only listed as a corporation’s owner because of immigration issues faced by his brother, the true owner of the company. The trial court ultimately found the father was not credible and rejected his claim of being a rideshare driver. According to the appellate opinion, “But in awarding 2024 and ongoing support, the trial court relied upon the father’s purported Uber earnings, as verified in his most recent financial affidavit, along with personal deposits. The court did not consider business income.” The mother appealed.
The appellate court noted “Florida courts have long recognized that self-employed spouses, unlike salaried employees, have significant control over their income. See Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). ‘Their testimony, tax returns, and business records accordingly may not reflect their true earnings, earning capability, and net worth.’ Id. This principle applies with even more force when a spouse fails to comply with discovery orders or withholds relevant financial information. See Nadrich v. Nadrich, 936 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).” The court further noted “‘[T]he Florida Supreme Court and other district courts have suggested that a presumption arises from a spouse[’]s historical earnings that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same amount, absent evidence to the contrary.’ Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).”
The court concluded “Here, the trial court expressly rejected the father’s testimony as to his Uber employment and instead relied on the forensic expert’s testimony in computing support for 2021 and 2023. See Moquin v. Bergeron, 338 So. 3d 918, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (forensic accountant’s testimony may rise to the level of competent, substantial evidence). But in calculating 2024 and ongoing support, the trial court incongruously relied on the same Uber earnings it previously rejected and further restricted its consideration to personal deposits, as opposed to the holistic indicia of business revenue. Because we cannot reconcile these findings, we are constrained to reverse, in part, and remand for the trial court to recalculate 2024 and ongoing support.”
Nothing in this article is legal advice. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney for specific advice about your case.