GARY BRANDT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH BRANDT, 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.
The court affirmed the property settlement and income imputation but remanded for reconsideration of child support.
The former husband appealed the trial court's decisions regarding property settlement, income imputation, and child support. The child support calcula…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The former husband has presented three issues for our review. We find no merit in his contentions arising from allegedly coercive threats inducing his concurrence in the property settlement. We find no error in the trial court’s imputation to him of $27,-500 in annual income.
The third and final issue involving child support has caused us concern. The former husband has asserted in his brief that he was ordered to pay $384.00 per month. The record discloses that pursuant to the child support guidelines worksheet he was ordered to pay $420.44. Although the guidelines may be used as a starting point in determining child support, they do not apply in a situation such as this where the parties’ combined annual income exceeds $50,000. Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood, 564 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (Sharp, J., concurring specially); § 61.30(1)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1987). The record does not disclose how the trial court calculated the amount of child support nor can we determine how the former husband arrived at the $384.00 figure he disputes. Nonetheless, based upon the confusing and limited record before us, the child support obligation appears to unduly burden the former husband.
We, therefore, remand the child support determination for reconsideration. Upon remand the court should consider factors such as the age of the child, her needs and the ability of the former husband to meet those needs. Bordman v. Bordman, 231 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). This matter is, therefore, affirmed in part but remand ed for reconsideration of the child support provisions.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yola Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…) The guidelines shall not: 2. Apply to parents with a combined net income in excess of $50,000 per year. Such persons shall be subject to child support orders based upon individual case by case review. (Emphasis added). See also Brandt v. Brandt, 565 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood, 564 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ombres v. Ombres, 564 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In Ombres, the court construed the guidelines to mean that each parent’s share of child support when the combi…
-
Durden v. Hewitt, 582 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…e expressly inapplicable in this case because the combined income of the parties exceeded $50,000. The reliance upon said guidelines appears [*1244] to have been more extensive than simply using them as a “floor” or starting point. Brandt v. Brandt, 565 So. 2d 397 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). Furthermore, the record does not appear to contain sufficient competent evidence to enable the trial court or master to utilize the provisions of section 61.-30(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), as is required to determine the pr…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Bordman v. Bordman, 231 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood, 564 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)