Hentze v. Denys
88 So. 3d 307
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dissolution of marriage 9/13/2001; rotating custody and financial responsibilities set; husband to pay daycare and health premiums; both share non-covered medical and related expenses equally; school and extracurriculars to be shared equally.
- Interim Order 7/15/2003 required documentation within 30 days to seek reimbursement for non-covered or deductible expenses; Hope Haven/ Parenting Coordination used since 2004 to split expenses.
- Contempt motions filed by both parties; husband claimed lack of full reimbursement for expenses; wife acknowledged some receipts were not timely provided by husband.
- Wife alleged reduced income; husband alleged increased income; wife sought modification of child support based on changed circumstances; trial court increased support to $977/month.
- Trial court found wife resigned for family plans, imputing lower income; court awarded husband $970.31 for unreimbursed expenses; Corrected Income Deduction Order issued with TJH’s age determination at issue.
- Final order affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for imputation of income and reconsideration of the deduction order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case applicability to reimbursements | Hentze argues Interim Order controls reimbursements. | Swanson argues law-of-the-case does not apply to trial orders. | Law-of-the-case not applicable to trial orders; preserved issue not raised on appeal. |
| Applicability to children’s expenses reimbursement | Hentze claims non-covered costs should be reimbursed per 30-day rule. | Swanson contends documentation timing was not mandatory for reimbursement. | Law-of-the-case not applicable; issue preserved only in part; remand noted. |
| Imputation of wife’s income for support | Hentze asserts wife voluntarily reduced income; court erred by not imputing. | Swanson argues no error in current income finding. | Abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded to impute income per §61.30(2)(b). |
| Corrected Income Deduction Order beyond minor’s age | Hentze argues order improperly extends past age/ graduation. | Swanson contends order aligns with final order terms. | Remand for reconsideration; potential end-date issue due to TJH’s age. |
| Interest on judgment and preservation on appeal | Hentze seeks interest on the $970.31 judgment. | Swanson argues issue not preserved as it appeared in final order. | Not preserved for appeal; burden on movant to raise in rehearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003) (law-of-the-case principles require appellate decision binding later proceedings)
- Empire Club, Inc. v. Hernandez, 974 So.2d 447 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (law-of-the-case does not apply to trial orders unless decided on appeal)
- Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105 (Fla.2010) (contention must be preserved; objections must track grounds on appeal)
- Hamilton v. R.L. Best Intl., 996 So.2d 233 (Fla.1st DCA 2008) (motion for rehearing required to raise new statutory issues)
- DeBacher v. DeBacher, 867 So.2d 404 (Fla.3d DCA 2003) (must impute income when underemployment is voluntary)
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So.2d 679 (Fla.4th DCA 1999) (mandatory imputation when underemployment is voluntary)
- Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811 (Fla.1st DCA 1997) (voluntary income reduction may require imputation for support)