Dominique Wilkins, Wife v. Nicholas Wilkins, Husband
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 17, 2021
Docket1D20-1908
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-1908
_____________________________
DOMINIQUE WILKINS, Wife,
Appellant,
v.
NICHOLAS WILKINS, Husband,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Daniel F. Wilensky, Judge.
March 17, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Dominique Wilkins appeals the trial court’s order granting
temporary relief in this dissolution proceeding. We affirm the
order generally but reverse the imputation of income to her. The
record establishes that Wilkins and her husband decided that she
would live with family in Jacksonville and take care of their minor
child (as well as Wilkins’ minor child from a prior relationship)
while finishing up her nursing degree. In requiring Wilkins to pay
monthly child support to her husband (who is in active military
duty), the trial court found that she had only taken one course
since moving in with her family and that it was “appropriate to
impute minimum wage to Wife for the purposes of calculating child
support.” Although a trial court is generally “required to impute
income to a parent who is voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed, pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes
(2003),” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA
2005), this Court has held that “[g]reat deference should be
accorded the joint decision of the parties that the wife should stay
home to care for the children . . . , notwithstanding any personal
feelings the trial court or this court may have concerning the
ultimate wisdom of that decision.” Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So. 2d 50,
55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Here, the trial court did not explain why
imputing income to Wilkins was appropriate when the couple had
agreed that she should stay home to care for the children and
attend college; no evidence suggests that Wilkins was required or
expected to generate income. As such, because competent
substantial evidence fails to support the trial court’s imputation of
income, that portion of the order granting temporary relief is
reversed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Michael Stanski, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
2