SUSAN CATHRYN BIRTHISEL, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN MICHAEL BIRTHISEL, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
In expressing our decision to reverse the trial court’s order terminating child support and finding that the ex-wife is indebted to the former husband in the amount of $2000.00, it is not necessary that we recount the underlying facts. The record before us will neither support the trial court's conclusion that the children were emancipated nor sustain the ex-husband’s entitlement to the recoupment of child support payments made during periods when the children resided with him. See Fileger v. Fileger, 478 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Raybuck v. Raybuck, 451 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…t the trial court intended Snyder’s probation officer to establish the amount of restitution, the amount of restitution must be determined by the trial court, and the trial court cannot delegate this duty to a probation officer. See Nathan v. State, 520 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Perry v. State, 513 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The state argues that the issue of restitution is moot because the trial court revoked Snyder’s probation and the trial court did not order Snyder to pay restitution in the sent…
Authorities Cited
- Sherl Lanette Raybuck v. Raybuck, 451 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Fileger v. Fileger, 478 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)