Case Name: James C. LEDBETTER, former husband, Appellant, v. Kathi B. BELL, f/k/a Kathi B. Ledbetter, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-08-13
Citations: 698 So. 2d 1272
Docket Number: No. 96-1643
Parties: James C. LEDBETTER, former husband, Appellant, v. Kathi B. BELL, f/k/a Kathi B. Ledbetter, Appellee.
Judges: DELL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 698
Pages: 1272–1274

Head Matter:
James C. LEDBETTER, former husband, Appellant, v. Kathi B. BELL, f/k/a Kathi B. Ledbetter, Appellee.
No. 96-1643.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 13, 1997.
Rehearing and Clarification Denied Oct. 8,1997.
Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.
Peter Ticktin of Peter Ticktin & Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

Opinion:
STEVENSON, Judge.
In this case, the former wife sought to have the trial court impute income to the husband, a licensed medical doctor, who was pursuing a lengthy post-graduate fellowship program. The trial court initially determined that the husband was underemployed and imputed income to him. In the first appeal, we remanded this cause for the trial court to determine whether the husband's underemployment was "voluntary" within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 61.30. That statutory provision allows the trial court to impute income to a parent when calculating support payments, but only if the parent is voluntarily underemployed. In Ledbetter I, this court established a two-factor test for determining whether the underemployment due to a parent's pursuit of additional education was "voluntary." 658 So.2d at 1148. The trial court was required to "[1] balance the needs and desires of the supporting parent to enhance his or her ca reer [2] against the current needs of the former spouse or minor children for support." Id. On remand, the trial court applied this test and again concluded that the husband was in fact voluntarily underemployed such that income should be imputed. The husband now appeals the order entered on remand.
While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court decided that it is unnecessary to determine whether the reduction in a parent's income due to the pursuit of additional education is voluntary or involuntary because in almost all cases the decision will be voluntary. Rather, the court formulated a simplified test; that is, whether the temporary reduction in income will be in the best interests of the support recipients. Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811, 815 (Fla.1997). If the temporary reduction in income is not in the best interests of the support recipients, the parent will not be entitled to a corresponding reduction in support payments. Id. We conclude that when the analysis prescribed by Overbey is applied to the trial court's order on remand, the order must be affirmed because the trial court did indeed predicate its findings on the best interests of the children. The trial court, in its written order, focused primarily on the fact that the children in this case, because of their ages, would never benefit from the husband's prolonged educational pursuits. Thus, the trial court concluded that it was appropriate to impute income to the husband. We further conclude that there was sufficient competent testimony in the record to support the amount of income which was imputed to the husband.
Accordingly, the final order on review is AFFIRMED.
DELL, J., concurs.
COSTELLO, DEDEE S., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.
. See Ledbetter v. Bell, 658 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(hereinafter¿edfceítór/).
. The court in Overbey disapproved the decision in Ledbetter I only to the extent that it relied on a "voluntary/involuntary rather than best interests analysis to justify or deny a requested reduction in child support payments." 698 So.2d at 815.