COLLEEN GURENE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN GURENE, 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 held that the father's loss of income was a substantial change justifying child support modification, but the trial court erred in deferring an income deduction order without good cause.
Appellant appealed an order modifying child support, arguing insufficient evidence of changed circumstances and improper deferral of an income deducti…
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 Income Deduction Order cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Colleen Gurene appeals from an order granting her former husband’s motion for modification of child support. Appellant alleges the following: (1) There was insufficient evidence of a material involuntary change of circumstance to support modification, and (2) the trial judge incorrectly deferred action on her request for entry of an income deduction order. We affirm as to issue one and reverse as to issue two.
We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the loss of income incurred by the father constituted a substantial change in circumstances which justified an adjustment of child support. Andrews v. Andrews, 448 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, provides for the entry of income deduction orders in cases involving modification of child support. In pertinent part, the statute provides, “The income deduction order is effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that the income deduction order shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount equal to 1 month’s support.” § 61.1301(l)(c) (1989). There was no finding of good cause in the instant case. In addition, there is no statutory authority for the trial court to defer entry of such an order. See Almodovar v. Gonzalez, 573 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to enter an order consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…between the obligor and the obligee and, at the option of the IV-D agency, by the IV-D agency in IV-D cases in which there is an assignment of support rights to the state, reviewed and entered in the record by the court. See also Gurene v. Gurene, 575 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing trial court’s decision to defer entry of income deduction order for child support because trial court did not make requisite “finding of good cause”). In this case, even if the trial court had properly entered an incom…
-
Robinson v. Robinson, 657 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…establishing or modifying child support or alimony, and this order is effective immediately unless the trial court finds good cause to delay entry of the order until there is a delinquency in an amount equal to one month’s support. Gurene v. Gurene, 575 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an income deduction order and to redetermine if good cause exists to delay the effectiveness of the order in accordance with section 61.1301(l)(c), Florida Statutes…
Authorities Cited
- Aurora Almodovar & Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Gonzalez, 573 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 448 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)