A Florida appeals court has reversed a child support order that required Jerra Gillespie to pay $702.90 per month to her former husband, Jason Minning. The court found that the trial court improperly calculated Gillespie's income, which was set at $78,000 a year without sufficient evidence. This decision affects the child support obligations of Gillespie and sets a precedent for how courts evaluate income imputation in similar cases.
The case, Jerra N. Gillespie v. Jason Minning, No. 2D20-3430, began after the couple's divorce in June 2018. At that time, they agreed that neither party would owe child support. Gillespie was earning $78,000 a year as a teacher in Florida. However, after moving to Missouri in 2019, she took a job that paid $57,600 annually. This change in circumstances led to a dispute over child support obligations.
In September 2018, Gillespie filed a petition to relocate with her child to Missouri and to establish a long-distance parenting plan. The court denied her relocation request but later, in October 2019, Gillespie filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, which did not initially include a request for child support. Minning, however, countered with a request for child support, leading to the trial court's hearing on the matter.
During the June 2020 hearing, Minning asked the court to impute a $57,600 income to Gillespie based on her new job in Missouri. However, the trial court indicated it could impute a higher income of $78,000, which was the amount she earned in Florida before her move. Ultimately, the court decided to impute the higher salary, leading to the child support order that Gillespie appealed.
The appeals court ruled that the trial court's decision to impute a $78,000 income was not supported by competent evidence. Judge Sleet, writing for the court, stated, "A trial court's imputation of income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence." The court emphasized that the trial court failed to consider the relevant job market in Fairgrove, Missouri, where Gillespie was living and working at the time.
In its ruling, the court noted that while Gillespie's previous salary in Florida was relevant, it did not provide a basis for determining her current earning potential in Missouri. The appeals court found that Minning did not present any evidence to demonstrate that Gillespie could earn $78,000 in her new location. Instead, the only evidence presented was Minning's testimony about her previous salary, which was deemed insufficient.
The court concluded that the trial court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine Gillespie's actual earning potential in Missouri and to establish a level of imputed income supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the court reversed the child support order as it related to the imputed income and directed the trial court to adjust the child support award accordingly.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for imputing income in child support cases. It reinforces the requirement that courts must rely on current and relevant evidence when determining a parent's earning potential, especially when circumstances change, such as relocation. The decision also highlights the importance of the burden of proof, which lies with the party asserting that income should be imputed.
Moving forward, this case may influence similar child support disputes where one parent has relocated and their earning potential is in question. Courts will likely take greater care to ensure that any imputed income reflects the current job market and the parent's actual circumstances.
As for what’s next, the trial court will need to conduct a new hearing to determine Gillespie's earning potential in Missouri. The appeals court's ruling does not appear to be subject to further appeal, as it is a decision from the District Court of Appeal of Florida. However, details about any related cases or further legal actions were not available in the court filing.