Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Are parents in Florida required to pay for college education as part of child support? Generally, the law considers the obligation to pay college tuition a moral obligation rather than a legal obligation. This was one issue appealed in the case Douglas v. Douglas, 5D20-2574 (Fla. 5th DCA October 8, 2021).
By the time a petition for divorce was filed, the former wife had been a stay-at-home wife for the entirety of the parties’ almost eight-year marriage. The parties had two children, and the former husband was a professional basketball player. The former husband played for teams overseas and testified to reduced income because of COVID. The trial court eventually entered a final judgment that included equitable distribution, retroactive alimony and child support, among other provisions which the former husband appealed.
First dealing with the former husband’s arguments that the trial court improperly imputed income to him and failed to impute income to the former wife, the appellate court found these to be without merit. The court held there was actually no imputation of income to the former husband; instead the trial court rejected the former husband’s claim that he was under contract to earn just $45,000 for the 2020 season. The former husband did not produce a contract to back up this claim, and the former wife presented expert testimony which indicated the former husband’s bank account records showed a higher salary. As to imputing income to the former wife, the court held “Although Former Husband presented some national employment data, he offered no evidence of what pay rates and jobs were locally available for which Former Wife was qualified. In the absence of such evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impute income to Former Wife. The absence of any abuse of discretion is further demonstrated by evidence that Former Wife had never worked outside the home during the marriage and had recently unsuccessfully applied for over thirty different jobs during their separation.”
As to retroactive support, the court reversed holding “The trial court arrived at that combined retroactive figure based upon spending by Former Wife after excluding Former Husband’s access to, and thereby having control of, two of the parties’ savings accounts which totaled $540,525.00. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, Former Wife spent $310,446.00 on what she described as her support, payment of marital expenses, and support of the parties’ two children. The trial court did not actually determine what Former Wife’s needs for temporary spousal support were during that time frame nor what the precise child support should have been. That determination is required for both retroactive awards.” The appellate court additionally found it was error for the trial court to fail to credit the former husband for the amount taken from this marital account for support.
Next, the appellate court considered the issue of the trial court ordering that the balance of the above-mentioned marital account be set aside to fund the parties’ children’s education. The court noted “That money had been in a joint account in both spouse’s names and was not a 529 Plan nor otherwise designated as an educational or college fund for the children. Although the parties resolved their parental issues by written agreement, their parenting plan did not include any stipulations about payment of college educational expenses.” The court held “Former Husband correctly argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that educational set-aside. ‘[A]ny obligation a parent has to fund the college education of an adult child is moral, not legal, and [ ] the court cannot require a parent to pay those expenses unless the parties have contracted for them in a marital settlement agreement.’ Wagner v. Wagner, 136 So. 3d 718, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (other citations omitted).”
Last, the court considered accountant fees charged for the preparation of their 2017 and 2018 tax returns which were assigned solely to the former husband. The appellate court held “There is no competent substantial evidence to support that ruling; thus, we reverse that portion of the final judgment and remand for entry of an amended equitable distribution that treats that expense as a marital obligation.” Navigating a Florida divorce without the help of an attorney may not be the best way to maximize the outcome of your case. Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to help you through the process.