WALTER NEIL GRIFFIN, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY E. GRIFFIN, APPELLEE
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 this divorce appeal, the husband challenges child support and alimony awards. The court reversed the $200 weekly child support award for a special-needs child as unsupported by demonstrated need, but affirmed the alimony awards despite the trial court's improper consideration of infidelity, finding adequate alternative support in the record.
The child support award lacked evidentiary support for demonstrated need and was reversed; the trial court may on remand award necessary travel expenses and any periodic support for additional expenses the mother can demonstrate. The alimony awards were affirmed because, although the trial court improperly considered infidelity, ample evidence in the record based on wife's need and husband's ability to pay supports the awards.
[1] An award of child support is reversible error when not supported by evidence of the child's demonstrated need.
[2] A trial court may require a parent to pay a child's necessary and reasonable travel expenses between home and school.
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“The award of the additional $200 per week as child support is not supported by evidence of any demonstrated need of the child and we therefore reverse the award.”
Establishes that child support must be supported by demonstrated need; the absence of such evidence warrants reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife divorced. They had a minor child, age 15, with Down's Syndrome who resides full-time at a special school in Tennessee. The husban…
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 Alimony Award cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises only two issues on appeal.
In the first issue, he urges that the trial court erred when it awarded wife $200 per week as child support for a minor child that suffers from Downs Syndrome. The child is fifteen years of age and is a full-time resident student at a special school in Tennessee. Husband is required to pay all school, training and educational expenses of the child, including tuition, books and supplies. Wife is not responsible for any of the school expenses. The evidence indicates the child comes to visit the mother in her home only twice a year, during her vacation and at Christmas. The award of the additional $200 per week as child support is not supported by evidence of any demonstrated need of the child and we therefore reverse the award. On remand, the trial judge may require husband to pay the child’s necessary and reasonable travel expenses between home and school. In addition, the trial judge may award as child support to wife any periodic sum that she can demonstrate to be necessary for any additional expenses she may incur on behalf of the child. If, of course, the child should cease to be enrolled as a fulltime student, the child support awards may be modified as that change of circumstance should warrant.
Husband’s other issue concerns alimony awards. Wife was awarded $200 per week as permanent periodic alimony and was granted, as lump sum alimony, all of husband’s interest in the marital home, subject to wife’s payment of the mortgage debt on the home.
Husband urges that the trial court erred when it considered husband’s marital infidelity in fashioning the alimony awards. Such consideration in fashioning an alimony award as punishment to an unfaithful husband is error. Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986). While we can find no useful or beneficial purpose in the trial court’s written findings and comments in the final judgment pertaining to husband’s alleged infidelity, we cannot conclude that the alimony awards were based upon those statements. We find ample evidence in the record based upon wife’s need and husband’s ability to comply to support the alimony awards.
We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part and remand for treatment consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donoff v. Mitzi Robin Donoff, 691 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ly that the son’s expenses during the time he resides with the former includinclud-ing clothes she buys for him or gifts she sends him, would be the equivalent of the support required to maintain a child on a full-time basis. See Griffin v. Griffin, 510 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (award of $200 per week to wife as child support for minor child with Down syndrome was erroneous where husband was required to pay all school, educational, and training expenses of the child, and the child only visited mothmother…
-
Zucker v. Jules Zucker, M.D., 577 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…2d 1111 (Fla. 1980); Donner v. Donner, 281 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1973); Harrell v. Harrell, 171 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); cf. In re J.R.K., 541 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Griffin v. Griffin, 510 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1986)