“Good Fortune” child support is a niche and often misunderstood topic. This misunderstood concept created mostly by Florida case law. It is not expressly stated/provided for by the Florida Statute, and, as such, how it is applied is done on a case by case basis.
In Florida, child support is calculated based on the parties’ respective net monthly incomes. Net monthly income simply means a party’s total monthly income (from all sources), which is the party’s “gross monthly income”, minus all monthly allowable deductions. Allowable deductions include federal, state, and local income tax deductions, mandatory union dues, mandatory retirement payments, health insurance payments, and court-ordered support for other children.§ 61.30(3)(a-g), Fla. Stat. The net incomes of both parents are added together to get the combined net monthly income, which is then used to determine the minimum child support need according to the guidelines schedule. The guidelines provide a table of minimum amounts for parents whose combined net monthly income is $120,000 or less. For incomes above this threshold, a formula is applied to calculate support based on the number of children at issue. When utilizing that formula, a certain percentage (based on the number of children at issue) is applied to the total net monthly income over $10,000. Based on this formula, a presumptive child support amount can be applied/calculated for any conceivable amount of income, but that presumptive child support amount will increase as the total combined monthly net income increases. That could potentially lead to an inequitable result.
That is why trial courts can deviate from that presumed child support amount pursuant to the guidelines. However, if that deviation exceeds 5% from the presumptive amount, the court must support that decision with factual findings. This concept of “deviation” represents the catalyst for the concept of “good fortune” child support. With that catalyst came the seminal case on the issue, Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1998).
The Finley case was a paternity action where the establishment of child support was at issue. The father in that case was professional basketball player,Dennis Scott, of the Orlando Magic. After trial, the court ordered Mr. Scott to pay$2,000 per month of direct child support to the Mother and $3,000 per month to the appointed guardian of the child’s property, meaning a total of $5,000 per month. However, based on the parties’ incomes, the full guideline amount, $10,011, more than double. Accordingly, the mother appealed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that it was within the trial court’s discretion to make such a drastic deviation from the presumed child support number, so long as such a deviation was appropriate under the circumstances. Essentially, trial courts must presume that the amount calculated under the child support guidelines is the appropriate amount, but it can deviate from that amount so long as there are sufficient findings to do so. To that point, an appropriate consideration to support such a deviation in child supportis the “actual expenditure for the needs of the child…”
The practical application of this concept is that, at a certain point, the presumptive child support amount may exceed the actual amount spent on the needs of a minor child. Of course, a child’s “needs” would be the actual, reasonable expenditures made by the parents associated with the children. This would not include any outlandish or non-customary expenses, such as lavish gifts, limos rides for the children and their friends, and/or other purely discretionary expenses. If the child’s “needs” do not meet the presumptive child support amountunder the guidelines, it would be inappropriate for the Court to order that amount as the monthly child support amount.
By way of example, there may be a divorce case, where the parties have two (2) minor children. Perhaps the parties signed a premarital agreement that significantly limited the wife’s entitlement to equitable distribution of the marital estate and/or alimony. Accordingly, the Wife has little income, $3,000 per month ($36,000 per year). Whereas the Husband’s gross monthly income is $500,000 per month ($6,000,000 per year). After all available deductions, the Husband’s net monthly income is $306,274 per month, and the Wife’s net monthly income is $3,364 per month. The presumptive monthly child support amount in that fact pattern is $18,163 per month ($217,956 per year),
It is very possible that the amount spent on the monthly support of the children does not reach $18,163 per month. Even if total housing cost for the Wife and two children totaled $12,000 per month for rent, utilities, maintenance, repairs, etc. Child support is only meant to cover a portion of those expenses, not to support the other parent. Two thirds (2/3) of those expenses would only be $8,000 per month. Even at $2,000 per month on food, $1,000 per month on clothes, $4,000 per month on other expenses, the total expenses for the children still would not reach $18,163 per month. In fact, that would mean the Wife is receiving approximately $3,163 per month ($37,956 per year) beyond the children’s needs. Over the course of the children’s minority (say 15 years), that could mean $569,340 beyond the children’s needs.
To that point, this fact pattern represents a relatively “conservative” income figures, especially for South Florida (a location with a relatively high standard of living). In a case where a person makes $6,000,000 per month ($72,000,000 per year), the presumptive child support amount could be $236,605 per month. The actual living expenses of the minor children in such a scenario are not likely to reach $236,605 per month. Even if the actual expenses were $100,000 per month, the parent receiving child support would presumptively be receiving an amount that is more than double what the children need for their support.
These are clear examples of when a trial court should utilize its discretion to deviate from the child support guidelines. This concept of deviating downward from the presumed child support amount under the guidelines is what practitioner have come to call “good fortune” child support. The idea being that the children should not profit from the “good fortune” of a parent by either receiving funds that exceed their normal needs or empowering the children to live an outrageously lavish lifestyle.
Obviously, these types of cases are incredibly fact intensive. Further, they are often extremely contentious because parents can have very different opinionsas to what are the actual needs of the minor child(ren) and the cost associated with those needs. It is imperative that a party involved in one of these types of cases retain an attorney who is experienced in these types of cases, and that they work with financial experts who have experience in these types of cases.