VICKI S. TOUCHSTONE, APPELLANT,
v.
MYRON LAVELLE TOUCHSTONE, 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.
Vicki Touchstone appealed a divorce judgment denying her rehabilitative alimony and awarding child support below statutory guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the denial of rehabilitative alimony but reversed the child support award because the trial court failed to provide written findings explaining its departure from statutory minimum guidelines.
The court affirmed the denial of rehabilitative alimony as without merit. The court reversed the child support award because the trial court erred in departing from the statutory minimum guidelines without stating written findings or specific findings on the record explaining why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
[1] A trial court must provide a written or specific finding on the record explaining why ordering child support at the statutory guideline amount would be unjust or inapprop…
[2] Statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, are generally not considered retrospective in application.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount different from such guideline amount upon a written finding, or a specific finding on the record, explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate”
This statutory requirement mandates that any departure from child support guidelines must be supported by written or specific findings explaining the justification for departure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The court denied Vicki Touchstone's petition for rehabilitative alimony and award…
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 Procedural Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Vicki Touchstone appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court denied her petition for rehabilitative alimony and awarded child support which departed from the minimum amount under the guidelines of Section 61.-30, Florida Statutes (1987).
We find the rehabilitative alimony issue is without merit. We find, however, that the trial court erred in departing from the statutory minimum child support guidelines amount without stating its findings and explaining why it departed from the recommended minimum guidelines.
Section 61.30(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) provides:
[T]he trier of fact may order payment of child support in an amount different from such guideline amount upon a written finding, or a specific finding on the record, explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not set forth a specific written finding on the record to justify departure from the statutory guidelines amount. Although not raised by either party on appeal, we point out, sua sponte, that the court should have applied Section 61.-30(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). In City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961), the court said:
Remedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the legal conception of a retrospective law, or the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes. Id. at 136 (citing Cunningham v. State Plant Board of Florida, 112 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1959)). Here, Section 61.30(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), is procedural in nature because it only requires the trial court to justify its departure from the recommended minimum amount of child support with specific or written findings. Even if Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1987) fully applies, the absence of specific or written findings of fact preclude meaningful appellate review of the financial evidence in the lower court proceedings. See Raehn v. Raehn, 557 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Accordingly, that part of the order awarding child support to appellant below the minimum statutory guidelines amount is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an amended order which states findings explaining the reasons for departure from the guidelines, assuming the trial court, on remand, adheres to a guidelines departure support order. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ction 61.30(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), specifically requires the trier of fact to make a specific finding on the record when he orders payment of child support in an amount different from the guideline amount. See also Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (it is error to depart from the statutory minimum child support guidelines without stating findings and reasons for the departure). We, therefore, must reverse the part of the order awarding child support and remand the cause for…
-
Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…y ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.” § 61.-30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1992). Wood; Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Neal. [*869] The trial court noted that the husband and his second wife had purchased an expensive piano, but additionally noted that the second wife’s funds had been utilized to make the purchase. Evidence in the record also in…
-
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ed findings are required to explain the specific basis for the court’s departure from the presumptive support amount. These directions assume, of course, that on remand the trial court elects to deviate from the guidelines. Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing final judgment and remanding for findings to explain departure from minimum guideline amount). However, we offer no opinion as to the appropriate result on remand. We find no abuse of discretion in the awarding of tax…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961)
- Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- James L. Cunningham and his wife v. State Plant Bd. OF Fla., 112 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- James L. Cunningham and his wife v. State Plant Bd. OF Fla., 115 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1959)
- Raehn v. Raehn, 557 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)