A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Eberhart v. Eberhart, provides a critical and costly lesson in the fundamentals of divorce math. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment and found that the trial court had made a series of basic, reversible errors in calculating the parties’ incomes. The court’s mistakes were so significant and obvious that the appellate court was able to reverse the decision even without a trial transcript.
The trial court was found to have made several fundamental mistakes:
- It used the parties’ gross monthly income instead of their net monthly income to calculate alimony and child support, a clear violation of Florida law.
- It created a final judgment that was internally inconsistent, listing two different “net incomes” for the Former Wife, one of which was actually her gross income.
- It found the Former Husband’s net income to be a figure that was higher than his gross income, a mathematical impossibility.
- It explicitly refused to deduct the Former Husband’s pre-existing, court-ordered alimony payments to a previouswife when calculating his net income.
- It failed to perform the mandatory “income shift” for the new alimony award, neglecting to deduct the new alimony from the Husband’s income and add it to the Wife’s income before calculating child support.
The appellate court reversed the entire financial portion of the judgment and sent it back to the trial court for a complete recalculation. This case is a stark reminder that in family law, the details are not just important; they are everything. For anyone facing a divorce in Tampa, it highlights the absolute necessity of a Tampa divorce lawyer who can meticulously verify every line of a financial affidavit and every calculation on a child support worksheet.
The Most Important Rule: Gross Income vs. Net Income
The central error in the Eberhart case is the most common and most devastating mistake in family law finance: confusing “gross income” with “net income.” Florida law is crystal clear that all support calculations—both alimony and child support—must be based on a party’s net monthly income. Using gross income is a fundamental error that will always result in a reversal on appeal.
The reason is simple. Gross income is a “fantasy” number. It is the amount of money a person earns before a single deduction is taken. Net income is the reality. It is the actual, spendable income available to a party after all mandatory deductions are removed. Calculating support based on gross income illegally inflates a party’s “ability to pay” and results in a support order that is often financially impossible to follow.
A core function of a Tampa divorce lawyer is to guide the court in performing this calculation correctly, ensuring every legal deduction is accounted for.
What is Gross Income?
Gross income is the starting point. The law defines it broadly to include almost every conceivable source of inbound money. It is not just a W-2 salary. A comprehensive list of what constitutes gross income in Florida includes:
- Salary or wages
- Bonuses, commissions, allowances, and overtime
- Business income from self-employment, partnerships, or corporations
- Disability benefits (both private and government)
- All workers’ compensation benefits and settlements
- Unemployment compensation
- Pension, retirement, or annuity payments
- Social Security benefits
- Spousal support received from a previous marriage or from the current case (as Eberhart noted)
- Interest, dividends, and royalties
- Rental income
- Income from trusts, estates, or investments
An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will often engage in financial discovery, subpoenaing bank records and business accounts to ensure all sources of gross income have been identified and are on the table.
What is Net Income? The Mandatory Deductions
This is where the Eberhart trial court failed. “Net income” is a specific legal term. It is not the same as a person’s “take-home pay” on their paycheck. Net income is calculated by taking the total gross monthly income and subtracting only the specific, allowable deductions set forth in the Florida statutes.
These mandatory deductions include:
- Federal, state, and local income taxes (calculating this “tax effect” is a critical skill).
- Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) or self-employment tax.
- Mandatory retirement payments (e.g., a required pension contribution for a government employee).
- Mandatory union dues.
- Court-ordered health insurance premiums (for the parent and/or the children).
- Court-ordered child support for children from a different relationship.
- Court-ordered spousal support paid to a previous spouse.
This last point was a key error in the Eberhart case. The trial judge explicitly refused to deduct the Former Husband’s alimony payments to his previous wife. This was a direct violation of the law. That money is not “available” to the Former Husband, and it was a clear error not to subtract it from his gross income before determining his “ability to pay” the new spouse. A qualified Tampa divorce lawyer would have immediately identified this as a reversible error.
The Eberhart Errors and the “Facial Error” Exception
The Eberhart case is also a powerful lesson in appellate procedure. The Former Husband appealed without providing a trial transcript. In most cases, this is a fatal mistake.
The “transcript rule” (often called the Applegate rule) states that without a trial transcript, an appellate court has no way to review the evidence. It cannot know what the parties testified to or what financial documents were presented. Therefore, the court must presume the trial judge’s factual findings were correct. This “presumption of correctness” results in an automatic affirmance of the trial court’s decision in 99% of cases.
However, Eberhart is the 1%. The appellate court did reverse the decision, relying on a narrow but critical exception: “error that is clear on the face of the Final Judgment.”
The Eberhart judgment was riddled with these “facial errors.” An appellate judge did not need a transcript to see that the math was wrong.
- The judgment contained direct contradictions, listing two different net incomes for the Former Wife.
- The judgment contained a mathematical impossibility. The court found the Former Husband’s net income ($10,347) was higher than his documented gross income ($10,148.97). You do not need a transcript to know that a person’s net pay can never be more than their gross pay.
- The judgment contained a legal error on its face when the judge admitted to not considering the previous alimony obligation.
This is a high-level legal point, but it shows the meticulous review a Tampa divorce lawyer must perform on a final judgment. An appeal is not always about re-arguing the facts; sometimes, it is about pointing out that the judgment itself is illogical, internally contradictory, or mathematically impossible.
The Alimony-Child Support “Loop”: A Common and Costly Mistake
The final major error in Eberhart is one of the most common and complex calculation errors in all of Florida family law: the failure to properly account for the interplay between alimony and child support.
A trial court cannot just calculate alimony and child support in a vacuum. The law requires a specific, two-step process, and failure to follow it (as happened in Eberhart) is reversible error.
Here is the correct procedure:
Step 1: Calculate Alimony The court first determines the alimony award. It looks at the parties’ initial net incomes (after deducting pre-existing obligations, like the Husband’s alimony to his first wife) and determines the recipient’s “need” and the payor’s “ability to pay.” In Eberhart, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $448.70 per month.
Step 2: “Shift” the Income and Calculate Child Support This is the step the trial court missed. The court does not use the initial net incomes to calculate child support. It must first account for the new alimony award, as this money is now “shifting” from one household to the other.
To properly calculate child support, the court must adjust the net incomes as follows:
- The $448.70 in alimony is subtracted from the Former Husband’s net income.
- The $448.70 in alimony is added to the Former Wife’s net income.
The court then uses these new, adjusted net incomes to run the child support guidelines worksheet. This mandatory “income shift” ensures that the child support calculation is based on the actual amount of money each parent will have in their household after the alimony is paid and received.
By failing to do this, the Eberhart court based its child support order on inflated numbers. It treated the Husband as if he still had the $448.70 (which he was now paying to the Wife) and treated the Wife as if she did not have that $448.70 in her income. This error almost always results in an incorrect child support amount. A Tampa divorce lawyer must be vigilant in ensuring the court performs this two-step calculation.
The “Ripple Effect”: Why One Error Can Unravel the Entire Judgment
The most significant part of the Eberhart decision may be its final paragraph. The appellate court did not just reverse the income calculations; it gave the trial judge a broad mandate on remand.
The court stated that the recalculation “may affect other calculations and findings” and that the trial court is “not precluded from reconsidering and amending” other parts of the judgment “to give equity to the parties.”
This is a legal “ripple effect” that can unravel the entire case. A final judgment is supposed to be a single, interwoven “equitable” package. The judge’s decisions on property division (equitable distribution), alimony, and child support are all connected.
For example, a judge might award the Former Wife the marital home (an unequal distribution of assets) because her alimony and child support are low. Or, as in this case, a judge might award support based on an incorrectly high income for the Husband.
Now, on remand, the trial court will be forced to use the Husband’s correct, lower net income. This will almost certainly result in lower alimony and child support payments. When that happens, the judge must ask: “Is the original property division still fair?”
The answer may be no. The judge may now need to “reconsider and amend” the equitable distribution to give the Husband more of the assets to make up for the new, lower support numbers. By reversing on the income issue, the appellate court effectively “re-opened” the entire financial case.
This shows that a “simple” math mistake is never simple. In a Tampa divorce, one calculation error can have a domino effect that changes the entire outcome of the case. This is why meticulous, detailed, and accurate financial calculations are the non-negotiable foundation of any successful divorce settlement or trial.
Conclusion: Your Case is Built on Math
The Eberhart case is a masterclass in the technical, non-negotiable, and often complex math that governs Florida divorce. It shows that judges are human and can make mistakes, but that the law provides a remedy for errors that are clear, obvious, and fundamental. It confirms that “net income” is the only number that matters, that all legal deductions must be taken, and that the interplay between alimony and child support is a mandatory two-step process.
Navigating these complex financial waters is not something to be done without professional guidance. The difference between gross and net, the knowledge of mandatory deductions, and the ability to spot a “facial error” in a judgment are skills that an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer brings to the table. These skills can, and often do, make the difference of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars over the life of a support obligation.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce, the financial calculations are too important to leave to chance. Contact our office for a consultation to ensure your financial affidavits are accurate, your support calculations are fair, and your final judgment is built on a solid, correct, and enforceable foundation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the difference between gross income and net income in a Florida divorce? Gross income is your total pay before any taxes or deductions. Net income, which is what all support calculations are based on, is your gross income minus specific, legally-allowed deductions like taxes, health insurance, and pre-existing support obligations.
Why did the court in Eberhart v. Eberhart get reversed? The trial court made several “facial errors” in its math. It used gross income instead of net, made contradictory findings, and failed to deduct the Husband’s pre-existing alimony payments to a previous wife before calculating the new support awards.
Can an appeals court reverse a case without a trial transcript? It is very rare, but yes. An appellate court can reverse if there is an “error on the face of the judgment.” This means the judgment itself is internally contradictory, mathematically impossible, or contains a clear legal error that does not require reviewing the trial testimony.
How does alimony affect child support calculations? The court must use a two-step process. First, it determines the alimony award. Second, it adjusts the parties’ net incomes—subtracting the alimony from the payor and adding it to the recipient—before calculating child support with these new income figures.
My ex-spouse pays alimony to a wife from a prior marriage. Does that affect my case? Yes, absolutely. As the Eberhart case confirms, any court-ordered spousal support paid to a previous spouse is a mandatory deduction from your ex-spouse’s gross income. This lowers their net income, which will then be used to calculate your alimony and child support.
The McKinney Law Group: Clear, Compassionate Guidance for Divorce in Tampa
We understand the stress of ending a marriage. Our Tampa divorce lawyers combine compassion with legal precision to help clients achieve fair, lasting outcomes for their families.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to get started.