Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support

A millionaire who is ordered to pay child support in Florida may not be subject to the same child support guidelines as cases in which parents earn less money. This is because Florida law states a child’s need is only one factor the court must consider in determining child support. A parent who is wealthy can afford a certain standard of living that the child should be able to share in, according to Florida law. This was an issue in the case A.G.W. v. C.L.C., 2D22-126 (Fla. 2d DCA February 17, 2023).

The parties were never married and conceived a child. A paternity action was filed, and the father was ordered to pay $8,000.00 in child support per month which was non-modifiable through a certain date because his professional baseball contract was guaranteed through that date. The parties agreed to exchange financial information once the contract was no longer guaranteed to determine if modification was appropriate. The father pre-paid his $8,000 per month obligation in two lump sum payments. After the exchange of financial information, the mother filed a petition for modification alleging the father’s contract increased from about $2,000,000 to about $9,000,000 annually. She requested attorney’s fees and costs. The father counter-petitioned for modification, alleging the mother’s annual income increased by about $20,000, and therefore his child support obligation should be reduced.

At a hearing on the competing petitions, the court found there was a substantial change in circumstances. The guidelines showed the father should pay over $25,000 per month, but the court found the child’s actual needs were about $3,800 per month. The court found “it would not be a fair and just result to require the Father to pay child support in the amount provided by the Child Support Guidelines as same substantially exceeds the actual bona fide needs of the child. The Child Support Guidelines reflects almost four times as much money as the Mother would bring in on her own on a monthly basis.” As to attorney’s fees and costs, the court noted that the mother was able to amass a savings account holding $100,000 and attributed this to the child support payments she was receiving from the father. The court therefore found the mother did not have a need for her fees and costs to be paid. The mother appealed.

The appellate court noted “where ‘the child support was based on an agreement by the parties that was subsequently incorporated into an order, a heavier burden rests on the party seeking a reduction than would otherwise be required.’" The appellate court cited the Florida Supreme Court case Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436, 437 (Fla. 1993): “As a practical matter, it is impossible to believe that any court would award the same amount of child support where the paying parent is a multimillionaire as it would where the paying parent makes a modest living. While technically the child's basic survival needs would be the same in each case, the determination of "need" in awarding child support takes into account more than just the basic necessities of survival. The child of a multimillionaire would be entitled to share in that standard of living—for example to attend private school or to participate in expensive extracurricular activities—and would accordingly be entitled to a greater award of child support to provide for these items, even though provision for such items would not be ordered in a different case.”

The appellate court concluded “In denying the Mother's petition without explanation, the trial court appears to have ignored the supreme court's unequivocal holding that’"an increase in ability to pay is itself sufficient to warrant an increase in child support.’ Schou, 616 So. 2d at 438. The Father admitted that his base salary had increased from $2.3 million to $9.75 million. Yet the only ‘change in circumstances’ the trial court found was a resulting greater-than-fifteen-percent difference between the existing monthly obligation and the Guidelines amount under section 61.30(1)(b). [. . .] The court also failed to properly apply the good fortune factor. Despite acknowledging that the award in cases like this one should be based not only on the child's needs but also on good fortune, the court expressly set the monthly obligation at the exact amount it found for the child's monthly need. But on this record, where the Father's good fortune is clear and undisputed, the court should have taken it into account in determining the appropriate amount of support under section 61.30(1)(a). See Schou, 616 So. 2d at 438 (‘[T]he need of the child is only one of several factors to be considered in determining an appropriate amount of support.’).”

Turning to the court’s decision on the mother’s request for attorney’s fees, the appellate court found it was error to determine the mother had the ability to pay her own fees based solely on her having a CD account holding $100,000. The mother testified she placed the lump sum child support payments in this CD account and planned to use it in the future for the child’s needs. The appellate court held “To the extent the court intended to suggest that the Mother should pay her attorney's fees with child support monies, that would also be error. As this court recently observed, child support payments ‘are not income. After all, '[c]hild support is a right that belongs to the child.'“ (internal citation omitted).

Schedule your meeting with a Miami child support lawyer to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.