WILLIAM D. BURKHART, APPELLANT,
v.
JERI LYNN BURKHART, 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.
A husband appeals a non-final order awarding temporary child support and spousal support during dissolution proceedings. The appellate court reverses both awards, finding the spousal support was improper because it was not requested and the child support failed to apply statutory guidelines.
The court reversed both awards. The spousal support award was erroneous because the wife did not request it and there was no indication it was tried by consent. The child support award was improper because the trial court failed to apply the statutory child support guidelines, which are applicable to temporary support awards.
[1] A trial court errs by awarding spousal support when the motion filed by a party seeking temporary relief contains no request for spousal support and there is no indicatio…
[2] Child support guidelines are applicable to temporary child support awards.
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“it was error to award the wife $50.00 per week as temporary spousal support”
Establishes that spousal support cannot be awarded without proper request or trial by consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring dissolution proceedings, the wife filed a 'Motion for Temporary Needs' seeking custody of two minor children and support. The trial court 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 Temporary Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals a non-final order requiring him to pay temporary child support for the benefit of his two minor children, and temporary spousal support to his wife, with whom he was engaged in dissolution proceedings. We reverse both awards, and remand for reconsideration in light of the following.
The order under review was issued in response to the wife’s “Motion for Temporary Needs,” in which she sought custody of the two minor children during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings and “a reasonable sum as and for support of the minor children of the parties.” The Motion contains no request for spousal support, nor is there any indication that the wife’s entitlement to same was tried by consent of the parties. Consequently, it was error to award the wife $50.00 per week as temporary spousal support. See Palumbo v. Palumbo, 576 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Littleton v. Littleton, 555 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Concerning temporary child support, the order required the husband to pay $75.00 per child per week. No explanation was provided in support of this figure, nor does it appear that the trial court ever considered the child support guidelines which, we conclude, are applicable to temporary support awards. See Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). If applied, the guidelines would have indicated a much smaller support award based upon the husband’s net monthly income.1 Of course, the trial court may consider a variety of factors in arriving at a final figure, but the guidelines represent the presumptive amount to be ordered as child support. See § 61.30(l)(a), (6), (10), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). On the scant record before us, there is no indication that the trial court ever considered the guidelines. Consequently, we must reverse the award and remand for consideration in light of section 61.30, Florida Statutes.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur. . The husbands financial affidavit shows a net monthly income of $1,068.64 for purposes of applying the guidelines. According to the wife’s affidavit, she is unemployed and without income.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Blum v. Blum, 769 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…h share of the award was for child support and which was intended to be alimony. Thus, we cannot determine whether the temporary child support portion of the award is appropriate in relation to the child support guidelines. See Burkhart v. Burkhart, 620 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(noting that child support guidelines are applicable to temporary child support awards); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(same). On this record, it does not appear that the trial court gave any consideratio…
-
Regalado Lopez v. Regalado, 257 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
DE Luca v. de Luca, 722 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…upport and $2,410 was temporary alimony. We find that the trial court properly followed the child support guidelines for two children with a household net income of $3,300 and awarded the wife $1,090 in temporary child support. Burkhart v. Burkhart, 620 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, the abuse of discretion lies in the award of $2,410 in temporary alimony to the wife. Even though the wife was able to show that the monthly expenses of the household are over $4,000, the court cannot proverbially “d…
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
- Garcia v. Sailly Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Pansy Palumbo v. Palumbo, 576 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Littleton v. Littleton, 555 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)