STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellant,

v.

CHANNON C. PRICE and JOHN 

E. PRICE,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1452

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 31, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Linda L. Nobles, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and William H. Branch, Assistant Attorney

General, Office of Attorney General Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Charles F. Beall, Jr. of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A. and Andrea B. Roberts, 

Legal Services of Florida, Inc., Pensacola, for Appellees.

BILBREY, J.

The Florida Department of Revenue appeals the amended final judgment of 

dissolution of marriage, and the second amended final judgment which denied

rehearing of the earlier judgment, on the issue of the determination of the father, 
2

John E. Price’s gross income under section 61.30(2)(a), Florida Statutes, for 

purposes of calculating the child support award. We review the trial court’s 

application of the statute to the undisputed facts de novo. Faller v. Faller, 51 So. 

3d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). 

The issue in this case is whether the father’s overseas housing allowance 

(OHA) for the period he was deployed to Bahrain on active service with the United 

States Navy, prior to his retirement, must be included in his gross income under 

section 61.30(2)(a), Florida Statutes. It was undisputed that the OHA is an 

allowance to offset off-base housing expenses when a Service member1 is 

deployed to a location where housing costs are higher than the Basic Allowance for 

Housing (BAH) covers.2

 In calculating past child support due, the trial judge 

concluded that the father’s gross income should not include the father’s OHA for 

the periods he benefitted from such payments, but did not explain how she reached 

that conclusion.

Section 61.30(2), Florida Statutes provides in pertinent part:

(a) Gross income shall include, but is not limited to, the 

following:

 

1 The word “Service” in “Service member” is capitalized and the term “Service 

member” is two words per Writing Style Guide and Preferred Usage for DoD 

Issuances, September 30, 2015, 

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/writing/Writing_Style_Guide.pdf (last 

visited December 3, 2015)

2 The father conceded at the trial level that BAH should be included in his gross 

income. Accordingly, we do not address that issue. 
3

1. Salary or wages.

2. Bonuses, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips, and other 

similar payments.

* * *

13. Reimbursed expenses or in kind payments to the extent that 

they reduce living expenses. . . .

The statute does not exclude military allowances, temporary or one-time 

bonuses,3 or earmarked allowances or reimbursements for housing which cannot 

be spent on non-housing expenses.4

 However, the Department does not argue that 

the OHA is salary under section 61.30(2)(a)1 or an allowance under 61.30(2)(a)2. 

Our analysis therefore concerns only section 61.30(2)(a)13.5

 

The public policy of the child support guidelines statutes is to standardize 

and facilitate each parent’s “fundamental obligation to support his or her minor or 

legally dependent child” and is “based on the parent’s combined net income 

estimated to have been allocated to the child as if the parents and children were 

living in an intact household.” § 61.29, Fla. Stat. Although they apply foreign 

statutes which differ slightly from the Florida provision, we find the opinions in 

 

3 See Colston v. Green, 742 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (Father’s one-time 

signing bonus from professional football team was required to be included in 

“gross income” under section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). 

4 See Dep’t of Revenue v. Hinnerschietz, 850 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) 

(Father’s benefits from business which contributed to his living expenses required 

to be included as “gross income” under section 61.30(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). 

5 While we can affirm a decision even if right for the wrong reason, we can only 

address arguments raised by an appellant if the arguments are in the initial brief. 

Goings v. State, 76 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). If not raised, other issues are 

moot. Id. 
4

Wilson v. Wilson, 855 N.W.2d 105 (N.D. 2014) and Berkbigler v. Berkbigler, 921 

P.2d 628 (Alaska 1996) persuasive. In both opinions, the courts held that the 

Service member parents’ OHAs constituted subsistence allowances for daily living 

expenses. Accordingly, the OHAs in those cases were required to be included in 

the Service member parents’ gross income for purposes of calculating past child 

support obligations.6

Accordingly, the father’s OHA for the months he benefitted from this 

allowance must be included in his gross income under section 61.30(2)(a)13, 

Florida Statutes. The trial court’s rulings to the contrary are reversed and this 

matter remanded for recalculation of the past child support obligation. In all other 

respects, the amended final judgment and second amended final judgment are 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

BENTON and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

 

6 We recognize that the learned trial judge was likely trying to avoid the potential 

inequity of a Service member stationed overseas and receiving OHA paying more 

child support than if that same Service member had been stationed in the United 

States. However, we are constrained to use the definition of gross income 

provided by statute. Any equitable consideration would be relevant to the child 

support awarded per section 61.30(11)(a)11, Florida Statutes, not the gross income 

calculation under section 61.30(2), Florida Statutes. See also Robinson v. 

Robinson, 657 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that high cost of 

living of parent residing in California may be a valid factor in deviating from child 

support guidelines).