LEONARD v. GORDON (2024)

The mother appeals a final judgment emanating from a paternity suit which determined issues relating to timesharing, child support, and the dependency tax credit. The mother's appeal raises five issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in using a model out-of-state parenting plan, (2) the parenting plan contains inconsistencies pertaining to travel, (3) the trial court's determination of the parties’ net incomes is not supported by competent substantial evidence, (4) the trial court's written judgment conflicts with its oral pronouncement regarding the dependency tax exemption, and (5) the final judgment does not contain findings of fact regarding the manner in which travel expenses were calculated. We affirm on all issues and write only to address issue 4. We find the other issues are without merit and thus affirm on those issues without further comment.

The mother filed a petition for paternity against the father. The parties have two minor children. At the end of trial, the trial court orally pronounced that it would not address the dependency tax exemption issue because neither party presented evidence regarding the tax consequences. The trial court then proposed that each party claim one child. The father agreed with this suggestion, but the mother objected. In response, the trial court stated, “Then I will make no ruling on the taxes.”

The trial court entered a final judgment, awarding the mother 285 overnights per year and the father 80 overnights per year. The final judgment incorporated a child support guidelines worksheet referencing the parties’ claiming alternating tax exemptions for the children. The mother moved for rehearing, arguing that the child support guidelines worksheet referenced tax issues contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement. The trial court then entered an amended final judgment, which stated: “The Court made no ruling on tax exemption requests as there was no agreement and the Court had insufficient evidence to determine what would be in the best interest of the child[ren].” However, the amended final judgment attached the same child support guidelines worksheet that referenced alternating tax exemptions.

On appeal, the mother argues that the amended final judgment conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement because in the amended final judgment it appears the father is authorized to claim one child for tax purposes. We agree. There is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the amended final judgment. The trial court orally stated that it would not make a ruling on the dependency tax exemption. However, the child support guidelines worksheet, which was incorporated into the amended final judgment, contemplates a situation in which each parent claims one child for tax purposes. It is clear that, where there is a conflict, “[a] trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.” Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Thus, the trial court's oral pronouncement declining to rule on the dependency tax exemption controls.

Therefore, in light of the trial court's oral ruling, the mother is presumptively entitled to the dependency tax exemption because she has the majority of the timesharing with the children. Frank v. Frank, 394 So. 3d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), is instructive on this point. In Frank, the husband argued the trial court erred in failing to include findings as to which parent was entitled to claim the dependency tax exemption for the children. Id. at 1188. We found that the trial court did not err in not including such findings and further found that, under the default rule, the wife was entitled to claim the exemption for both children. Id. at 1189. We explained that “Florida law does not require a finding regarding which parent is entitled to claim the dependency tax exemption.” Id. Rather, the parent with the majority of the timesharing is presumptively entitled to the dependency tax exemption. Id. “However, ‘the trial court has discretion to transfer the exemption to the noncustodial parent.’ ” Id. at 1188 (citation omitted). Because the trial court in its oral ruling had not exercised its discretion, the wife in Frank was entitled to claim the dependency exemption, notwithstanding the fact that the trial court did not make that express finding. Id. at 1189.

Frank distinguished Schenavar v. Schenavar, 350 So. 3d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), which required a determination as to which party had a right to claim the federal income tax exemption for each of the minor children. In Schenavar, both parties lived together with the minor children in the same house. Id. at 440. Thus, in Schenavar, the trial court needed to determine which party had the right to claim the exemption since neither party had the children the majority of the time. “In other words, in Schenavar, there was no presumption as to which parent had the right to claim the exemption.” Frank, 394 So. 3d at 1189.

In the instant case, the mother has the children the majority of the time and thus, under the default rule, is presumptively entitled to claim the dependency tax exemption for both children. Because the trial court orally ruled that it did not determine entitlement to tax exemptions, the presumption remained with the mother.

In summary, given the conflict between the trial court's oral pronouncement and the amended final judgment, we affirm the trial court's oral pronouncement but remand for the trial court to strike references in the child support guidelines worksheet to the father claiming either of the children for tax purposes.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Levine, J.

Damoorgian and Artau, JJ., concur.