KENNETH REICHLE, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
JOAN LEFF, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a paternity action, the trial court awarded child support of $1,100 per month to the mother, far exceeding the statutory schedule of $40-$110 per month. Both parents appealed—the father arguing the award was excessive and the mother arguing it was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion based on the father's substantial income exceeding $100,000 annually and the child's needs.
The appellate court affirmed the $1,100 monthly child support award, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Given the father's annual income well in excess of $100,000 and the mother's income of slightly more than $20,000, the award was within the bounds of sound judicial discretion and met the test of reasonableness.
[1] The support rights of illegitimate children are the same as those of legitimate children.
[2] A trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of child support to be awarded, considering the child's needs and the parent's ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such amounts may be increased or reduced by the judge in his discretion depending upon the circumstances and ability of the defendant.”
Establishes the statutory authority allowing trial courts to deviate from the statutory child support schedule based on circumstances and ability to pay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Reichle and Joan Leff had a child together. The trial court determined Reichle was the natural father in a paternity action. At the time of th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Award cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Both parties to this appeal seek to overturn an award for child support, appellant claiming that the award is overly generous and appellee that it is insufficient to meet the needs of the child. The award arises from a suit to determine paternity and requires appellant, as the natural father, to pay to appellee, the natural mother, the amount of $1,100 per month as child support, and to pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the birth of the child, arrearages and attorney’s fees and costs.
Section 742.041, Florida Statutes (1985), establishes a schedule for the amount of child support to be awarded in paternity actions, ranging from $40 to $110 per month, depending upon the child’s age, but further provides: “(2) Such amounts may be increased or reduced by the judge in his discretion depending upon the circumstances and ability of the defendant.”
The support rights of illegitimate children have been held to be the same as those of legitimate children. Rogers v. Runnels, 448 So. 2d 530, 532 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 461 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1984). “The criteria to be considered in awarding child support are the children’s needs and the parent’s ability to pay ... [and] the trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of child support to be awarded.” Davis v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 591, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). That discretion is, however, subject to a test of reasonableness that “requires a determination of whether there is logic and justification for the result.” Aycock v. Aycock, 433 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
It has been held that the most dominant and directly related factor to be considered in determining the amount of child support to be paid by a non-custodial parent is the income of that parent. Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). It is also established, both by statute, sections 61.13(1) and 742.-031, Florida Statutes (1985), and by case law, O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), that the duty to support minor children rests equally upon both parents.
We are satisfied that the trial court considered the evidence in light of the applicable law and made a proper allocation of financial responsibility for support of this child. Where the mother had an annual income of slightly more than $20,000 per year and the father’s income was well in excess of $100,000 per year, requiring the father to contribute $1,100 per month for support of the minor child was well within the limits of a sound exercise of discretion. We therefore affirm in all respects, including the subsequent award of costs and attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. The trial court properly allocated the financial responsibility for support of this child where the mother earns only $500.00 a month and the father has stipulated to his ability to pay any reasonable amount for child support. See Reichle v. Leff, 494 So. 2d 537, 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“[T]he most dominant and directly related factor to be considered in determining the amount of child support to be paid by a non-custodial parent is the income of that parent.”) (citing Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220…
-
Rainford Cole and Linda Turner v. Cole, 723 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…beneficiaries of the trust fund as well. First of all, under Florida law, the rights of children born out of wedlock to receive child support must be considered on an equal basis with the rights of children born within wedlock. See Reichle v. Leff, 494 So. 2d 537, 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Rogers v. Runnels, 448 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Coleman v. Mackey, 424 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (citing State Dep’t of HRS v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1979)); Shinall v. Pergeorelis, 325 So. 2d 431,…
-
Richards v. Ryan, 655 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…hese figures equate to barely more than $70.00 a month. “[T]he most dominant and directly related factor to be considered in determining the amount of child support to be paid by a non-custodial parent is the income of that parent.” Reichle v. Leff 494 So. 2d 537, 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). At the time of the hearing, Mr. Ryan had been operating a fence company for about three years. His financial affidavit demonstrated a total monthly income of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 424 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Dartha Killingsworth Thompson v. Thompson, 402 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cohen v. State, 433 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Rogers v. L.K. Runnels, 448 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Olmstead v. Olmstead, 371 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Davis v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)