A Florida court has reversed a divorce judgment regarding child support calculations that affected Chad McDaniel, a father of four. The court found errors in how the trial court calculated his income for child support purposes. This decision impacts both parents and clarifies how per diem payments should be treated in income calculations.
The case, Chad McDaniel v. Laura Alise McDaniel, was filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 2D20-2845. The appeal arose from a final judgment in a divorce case in Hillsborough County, where the trial court had determined the child support obligations of Chad McDaniel, who is employed in utility construction and maintenance.
The parties, Chad and Laura McDaniel, were married in 2011 and have four minor children aged between four and ten. Laura McDaniel worked as a veterinarian, while Chad's job required him to travel to various office locations. During the divorce proceedings, the calculation of Chad's income became a contentious issue, particularly regarding the inclusion of per diem payments he received from his employer.
The trial court had included these per diem amounts in Chad's income for the purposes of calculating child support. However, Chad argued that these payments were intended to cover travel expenses and did not reduce his overall living expenses. The court noted that the inclusion of such payments was improper without evidence showing they reduced his living costs.
The court ruled, "There was no competent, substantial evidence that the per diem amounts that the trial court included reduced the Father's living expenses." This statement highlights the court's concern that the trial court's decision lacked sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of per diem payments in the income calculations.
Additionally, the court found errors in the calculations of Chad's income for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. For 2019, the trial court failed to use the correct monthly total of $6,286.21, which both parties agreed was inaccurate. The court expressed confidence that this error could be corrected upon remand.
In addressing the 2020 income calculation, the court noted that the trial court relied on year-to-date totals from Chad's earning statements. Chad argued that the trial court should have calculated his income based on his current net pay, but the court found that the year-to-date figure was not necessarily erroneous. However, it did rule that the trial court erred by dividing this total by twenty-six days instead of thirty-one, as the year-to-date figure already represented the entire month of January.
The court's ruling has implications for how child support is calculated in divorce cases, particularly concerning the treatment of per diem payments. This case serves as a reminder that courts must rely on competent evidence when determining income for child support purposes.
Moving forward, this ruling may affect other similar cases where per diem payments are involved. Parents seeking child support adjustments may find this decision useful in arguing against the inclusion of such payments in income calculations. The ruling clarifies that per diem payments must be shown to reduce living expenses to be considered part of gross income.
As for what comes next, the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. This means that the lower court will need to recalculate Chad's income based on the correct figures and determine the appropriate child support obligations. There is no indication in the court filing that this ruling will be appealed, but the parties may seek to resolve the matter at the trial court level.