FLOYD J. WINTERS, APPELLANT,
v.
NADYA KATSERALIS, F/K/A NADYA GOLUBOV, F/K/A NADYA WINTERS, 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.
In this child support modification appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court ordered child support that deviated from statutory guidelines without providing written findings justifying the deviation. The case illustrates the requirement that courts must explicitly explain any departure from presumptively correct guideline amounts.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to provide written findings or specific record findings justifying the deviation from guidelines. The order must be reversed and remanded because, while courts have discretion to deviate, they must articulate valid reasons such as the children's greater support needs, disproportionate distribution between children, or circumstances justifying a parent's increased share beyond the guideline percentage.
[1] A trial court must make a written finding or a specific finding on the record to justify any deviation from child support guidelines.
[2] Child support guidelines are flexible and allow for adjustments based on various considerations.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court is authorized to adjust the award based upon a number of considerations. Section 61.30(10), Fla.Stat. (1991). In this case, it is possible that the trial court may have a valid reason to deviate from the guidelines. However, it made no written finding in its order to explain its deviation.”
Establishes that while courts have discretion to deviate from guidelines, they must provide written findings explaining the deviation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Winters and Ms. Katseralis are divorced parents of two children, with the father having custody of the son and the mother having custody of the da…
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 Net Monthly Income cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Mr. Winters, the former husband, appeals an order modifying child support payable to Ms. Katseralis, the former wife. This divorced couple has two children. The father has custody of the son, and the mother has custody of the daughter. We conclude that the amount of child support stated iti the order deviates from the amount established by the child support guidelines, and that the trial court failed to make a written finding in its order or a specific finding on the record to justify the deviation. Section 61.30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).
At the time of the hearing on the petition for modification of child support, both parents were teachers. Mr. Winters’ net monthly income was $1,985, and Ms. Katseralis’ net monthly income was $1,320. With a combined net monthly income of $3,305, the child support guidelines suggest that two children should receive total monthly support of $1,052. Section 61.30(6), Fla.Stat. (1991). Because the father earns 60% of the combined net income, his share of the child support should be $631 and the mother’s share should be $421. Section 61.30(8), Fla.Stat. (1991).
The mathematics of child support are more complex in this case because each parent has custody of one child. All things being equal, the father should pay the mother the difference between their respective obligations, i.e., $210 per month. The trial court, however, ordered the father to pay $325. Thus, Mr. Winters is effectively contributing $851 in support of the children, while Ms. Katser-alis contributes $201.1
Although our record is limited,2 it appears that Mr. Winters voluntarily paid Ms. Kat-seralis $325 each month for his daughter’s support after his son came to live with him. This amount, however, was not established by any stipulation, and the trial court made no finding that Mr. Winters was bound by any agreement to maintain this amount.
The child support guidelines are reasonably flexible. The trial court is authorized to adjust the award based upon a number of considerations. Section 61.30(10), Fla.Stat. (1991). In this case, it is possible that the trial court may have a valid reason to deviate from the guidelines. However, it made no written finding in its order to explain its deviation. The specific findings on the record indicate that the trial court did not intend for the parties to exchange monthly support checks and that the father’s $325 child support payment was a net amount, adjusted to reflect the mother’s obligation to support her son. The findings state that the husband has a greater ability to pay child support, but the guidelines already placed 60% of the obligation upon the father for this reason. The findings do not suggest that the trial court believed the father had a greater ability to pay than anticipated by the guidelines or that the trial court intended to create such a large deviation from the guidelines.3
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new determination of child support. If the trial court again decides to deviate from the guidelines, it should provide reasons to explain either why the two children need more support than anticipated by the guidelines, why one child needs a disproportionate share of the guidelines amount, or why one parent should pay a substantially higher percentage of the child support than that recommended by the guidelines.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. . At least in theory, each child is due 50% of the support or $526. The father contributes that amount for his son and $325 for his daughter, totalling $851. The mother contributes nothing for her son, and the $526 due for her daughter is reduced by the father’s payment of $325, for a net contribution by the mother of $201.
. We do not have a complete transcript of the proceedings. However, the trial court has provided the findings it made on the record at trial.
. The financial affidavits of both parents indicate that they are living beyond their means.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ch child’s support separately under the guidelines, the trial court, in effect, exceeded the minimum guidelines amount without specific findings regarding each child’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay. See § 61.30(l)(a); Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Under the requirements of section 61.30(9), the trial court had already considered the husband’s greater ability to pay when it calculated the percentage each parent should pay. However, to place the burden on the husband again b…
-
Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…Charles Cope carefully determined the items necessary to complete the child sup [*1055] port guidelines worksheet and performed the proper calculations. He concluded, however, that neither that form nor this court’s opinion in Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), provided more than a general solution to the problem.1 Judge Cope provided each child with a pro rata share of the statutory basic obligation and their specific share of the additional obligations. He then made certain that Mr. G…1 / 3
-
Brock v. Voncile Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…n for modification. Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). With respect to the appropriate methodology to use in calculating the parties’ respective support obligations, we adopt the approach employed in Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), explained in Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), as follows: In a split custody case, the trial court first determines the total child support obligation and each child’s share of that obligation. Thereafter,…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence