RICHARD M. TANNER, APPELLANT,
v.
DICKIE MARIE TANNER, 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 a hearing is required to set child support upon the obligor's release from incarceration.
Richard Tanner appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The judgment stated child support would be set upon his release from incarceratio…
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 Child Support Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Richard M. Tanner appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment, the court found that Tanner was unable to pay child support because he was incarcerated. The final judgment also provides that, without notice or hearing, an order would be entered after
Tanner’s release requiring him to pay child support in an amount commensurate with section 61.30, Florida Statutes.
Much of Tanner’s pro se brief refers to matters that occurred at the final hearing or alleges legal errors without citations of authority. It appears that no record was made of the final hearing, and in the absence of such a record, this court is unable to review the matters about which Tanner complains. Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
We do find merit in Tanner’s complaint that the final judgment provides that child support would be set without a hearing upon Tanner’s release from incarceration. Tanner is entitled to a hearing on that issue, so we vacate that portion of the order that reads, “An order shall thereafter be entered without notice or hearing obligating Respondent to pay child suuport [sic] to Petitioner in an amount commensurate with Section 61.30 Fla.Stat.” Except for that portion of the final judgment, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warnken v. Warnken, 689 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…atement to be submitted and approved by the trial court. We find no evidence in the record that this latter requirement was fulfilled. Therefore, this court is unable to fully review the matters about which the appellant complains. Tanner v. Tanner, 577 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We do find merit in Warnken’s complaint that child support of $200 per week shall resume immediately upon his release from prison. Warnken is entitled to a hearing after hi…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. Carter, 504 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)