Schafstall v. Schafstall
211 So. 3d 1108
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties: Michelle Bible Schafstall (former wife) and Charles Clifford Schafstall (former husband); married 1992, four minor children; dissolution final judgment entered July 2016.
- Timesharing and occupancy: 50/50 timesharing; former wife awarded exclusive use of marital home until children reach majority; former husband obligated to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance and will receive a credit on sale proceeds.
- Child support unresolved in marital settlement; trial court computed child support using guidelines and made specific income findings for the former wife.
- Income items the former wife appealed: (1) crediting as in-kind income the husband’s monthly mortgage payments ($1,300); (2) including $250/month in-kind contributions from the former wife’s mother (cell phone); and (3) imputing part-time income for voluntary unemployment ($487.50/month).
- Trial court also included an $834 adoption subsidy and $400/month alimony to the wife (not appealed).
- Trial court imputed the wife to work 15 hours every other week at $15/hour; court concluded wife’s disability evidence lacked sufficient independent support and found competent substantial evidence to include the challenged items in income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether husband’s mortgage payments for marital home must be included as former wife’s in-kind income | Trial court erred in treating husband’s mortgage payments as income to wife | Mortgage, taxes, insurance reduce wife’s living expenses and so must be included under child support guidelines | Included — mandatory to count mortgage payments as in-kind income under §61.30(2)(a)13 and precedent |
| Whether mother’s payments (cell phone) may be included as in-kind income | Court should not impute the $250 monthly as income | Payments by mother are a form of payment that reduce living expenses and fit the statutory definition of income | Included — supported by wife’s testimony and financial affidavit showing $250 phone expense |
| Whether court properly imputed part-time income for voluntary unemployment | Imputation was improper because wife is disabled and unable to work | Wife voluntarily unemployed; evidence shows she can work part-time and expert relied on self-reporting | Imputed — trial court’s findings (ability to work part-time, prior work while symptomatic, expert based on self-report) supported by competent substantial evidence |
| Whether the trial court’s overall child support calculation should be reversed | Trial court abused discretion in income findings and support award | Trial court acted within discretion and relied on competent substantial evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; findings supported by competent substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (1980) (standard for reviewing family-court discretionary determinations)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 995 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 2008) (imputation of income upheld when supported by competent substantial evidence)
- George v. George, 93 So.3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (housing/in-kind payments may be included in income)
- Jacob v. Jacob, 26 So.3d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (trial court must consider spouse’s payment of mortgage/utilities when completing child support worksheet)
- Cooper v. Kahn, 696 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (imputing income based on third‑party payments toward living expenses)
- Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So.3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (imputation of income for voluntary unemployment may be upheld despite disability evidence)
- Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011) (factfinder may weigh or reject expert testimony, including when based on self-reported history)