OSCAR MANTILLA v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 27, 2021.
________________
No. 3D20-949
Lower Tribunal Nos. CSP-2001508670, DOAH-20-001420-CS, Depository
no. 44190001057FR
________________
Oscar Mantilla,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, et
al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child
Support Program.
Abramowitz & Associates, and Evan L. Abramowitz, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee),
Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Florida Department of
Revenue.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Appellant Oscar Mantilla appeals from a final administrative support
order and income deduction order issued by an administrative law judge in
State of Florida’s Division of Administrative Hearings.
On appeal, Mantilla contends that, in calculating the child support
obligation, the administrative law judge abused his discretion in imputing
income to Mantilla without any substantial competent evidence to support
such an imputation.
Appellee, Department of Revenue, properly and commendably
concedes error and, upon our own review of the record, we agree that the
imputation of income is unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
See Waldera v. Waldera, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1838, 2020 WL 4495317 at *2
(Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2020) (stating: “A trial court’s determination of a party’s
income for purposes of establishing support obligations must be supported
by competent substantial evidence.” (quoting Sallaberry v. Sallaberry, 27 So.
3d 234, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). See also Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431 So. 2d
258, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (observing: “Judgments providing for automatic
changes in alimony and support payments upon future occurrences have
usually been disapproved because of the lack of an evidentiary basis for the
determination of future events. It follows that a dissolution judgment which
2
purports to consider future events as a basis for establishing current alimony
and child support must suffer a similar fate”) (citing Kangas v. Kangas, 420
So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla.
4th DCA 1980); Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)).
We therefore reverse the orders on review and remand the cause for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3