ANDREW R. MOODY
v.
NATALIA YEVGENYEVNA MOODY, N/K/A NATALIA YEVGENYEVNA ARRINGTON
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.
The appellate court granted a partial rehearing, reversing a trial court's child support calculation. The trial court erroneously used gross incomes instead of net incomes as required by statute, necessitating a remand for recalculation.
Yes, the trial court erred by using gross incomes. The appellate court held that child support must be calculated based on net incomes after subtracting allowable deductions.
[1] In calculating child support under Florida Statute § 61.30, a trial court must compute each parent's net income by subtracting allowable deductions from gross income befo…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it is clear on the face of the order that in calculating child support, the trial court erroneously used the parties’ gross incomes and failed to subtract any allowable deductions.”
Establishes the core factual and legal error identified by the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a trial court's order on remand concerning child support. Both parties agreed that the trial court had erred by using their gro…
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 Florida Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR REHEARING EN BANC AND WRITTEN OPINION
On consideration of Appellant’s motion for rehearing and Appellee’s amended response stipulating that it is clear on the face of the order being appealed that the trial court erroneously used the parties’ gross incomes in calculating child support, we withdraw our per curiam affirmance dated March 17, 2021, grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing in part, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
Appellant, Andrew R. Moody, appeals the trial court’s Order on Remand and Ruling on Other Pending Matters, raising several issues, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant argues, and Appellee stipulates, that it is clear on the face of the order that in calculating child support, the trial court erroneously used the parties’ gross incomes and failed to subtract any allowable deductions. Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2019), sets forth the child support guidelines, and it requires a trial court to compute each parent’s net income by subtracting allowable deductions such as federal income tax from his or her gross income and to determine each parent’s percentage share of the child support need by dividing each parent’s net monthly income by the combined net monthly income. § 61.30(3)(a), (4), (9) Fla. Stat. (2019); see also Finney v. Finney, 995 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining the steps a trial court must take in determining child support pursuant to the statutory guidelines set forth in section 61.30). Because the trial court’s order and the attached child support guidelines worksheets reflect that the court determined child support using the parties’ gross incomes, without subtracting allowable deductions, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Marini v. Kellett, 279 So. 3d 248, 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (reversing because the trial court improperly calculated child support using the parties’ gross incomes). We affirm the order in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________