Opinion
No. 1D19-2383
01-29-2020
Sahar Teymorzadeh HAUPT, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Mark HAUPT, Former Husband, Appellee.
E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellant. Jill W. Warren, Pensacola, for Appellee.
E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellant.
Jill W. Warren, Pensacola, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Sahar Teymorzadeh Haupt appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Mark Haupt. She argues that the trial court erred by 1) classifying certain properties as marital assets; 2) denying her request for attorney's fees; and 3) not including Mr. Haupt's bonus income in its calculation of child support. We affirm the first two issues without further comment but reverse on the third.
The parties produced financial affidavits for the trial court to consider when making the equitable distribution, calculating child support, and determining whether it should award attorney's fees. In his affidavit, Mr. Haupt included only his base salary in reporting his gross income. He excluded his bonus income because the amount varied from year to year. In 2016, Mr. Haupt received eight percent of his annual salary as a bonus, he received ten percent in 2017, and forty percent in 2018. For 2019, he expected to receive less than twenty percent.
Ms. Haupt conceded that Mr. Haupt's bonus income was not fixed. But she argued that the bonus income Mr. Haupt received over the years should be averaged and the average bonus amount should then be included in Mr. Haupt's gross income. The trial court found that Mr. Haupt regularly received bonus income but declined to include any bonus income in its child support calculation. The trial court erred in that omission.
Section 61.30, Florida Statutes, identifies the categories of income a trial court should consider when calculating child support and provides that
(a) Gross income shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Salary or wages.
2. Bonuses, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips, and other similar payments.
The child support statute plainly requires that bonuses be included in the calculation of gross income. City of Parker v. State , 992 So. 2d 171, 176 (Fla. 2008) (recognizing that where the language of a statute is clear, it should be given its plain meaning). And this Court has so held. In Crowley v. Crowley , 672 So. 2d 597, 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this Court held that the trial court erred by not including the former husband's bonus income in its child support calculation when the record was clear that the former husband received bonuses in the preceding four years. Id.
As in Crowley , the record here shows that, even though the amount varied, Mr. Haupt received a bonus each year from 2016-2018, and he anticipated bonus income in 2019. Thus, the trial court was required to include Mr. Haupt's bonus income when calculating his gross income. We reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate child support. We affirm the remaining issues.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
Roberts, Rowe, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.