ALLAN FINCH, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON LYNN FINCH, 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.
Allan Finch appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's refusal to award child support. The court reversed on the child support issue, holding that child support cannot be waived by agreement and must be determined according to statutory guidelines.
The trial court's refusal to award child support was improper. Child support may not be contracted away or waived by the parties, and when the issue is pled for the trial court's determination, the court must apply the statutory child support guidelines to establish a presumptive support amount.
[1] A trial court errs in finding that parties waived child support when the issue was specifically presented for the court's determination.
[2] Child support obligations cannot be contracted away by the parties.
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“child support may not be contracted away”
Establishes the fundamental principle that parties cannot waive or eliminate the right to child support through agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a marital settlement agreement that was silent on child support, though both parties pled the issue for trial court determina…
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 Waiver Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant, Allan Finch, timely appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The only issue raised by appellant on appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s failure to award child support.
Before the parties were divorced, they entered into a marital settlement agreement, the terms of which they sought ratification and incorporation of into the dissolution judgment. The parties agreed to share parental responsibility of their child with appellant designated as the primary residential custodian. Although the agreement does not address the issue of child support, both parties pled the issue as a matter for the trial court’s determination. The trial court’s order setting case management conference and order setting pretrial conference and trial date further include the issue as an issue for its determination.
Following a dissolution hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. Acknowledging that they had entered into a marital settlement agreement which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, the court ordered shared parental responsibility of the child and designated appellant as the primary residential custodian. Appellee was given reasonable rights of visitation. She was also ordered to provide for the child’s health insurance and both parties were ordered to share those medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred by the child which were not covered by insurance.
The trial court refused to award appellant child support reasoning as follows:
4. The parties have made no provision for a support contribution for the benefit of the minor child by the Wife as noncustodial parent and therefore have waived the child’s right to support from the noncustodial parent. The Wife, therefore, shall not have an obligation for the support of the minor child.
Because the parties pled the issue of child support as a matter for the trial court’s determination, the trial court’s finding that the parties waived the right is erroneous. Moreover, child support may not be contracted away. Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1976); Bush v. Bush, 590 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Finally, section 61.30(1)(a) establishes a presumptive amount of child support to be ordered by the trial court based upon the child support guidelines. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to set an amount for the appellee to contribute toward the support of her child.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suellen Wilkes v. Wilkes, 768 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…r trial counsel). The wife’s trial counsel conducted no discovery. A child’s right to support may not be waived by a parent, see Strickland v. Strickland, 344 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), nor may that right be contracted away, see Finch v. Finch, 640 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Here, the marital settlement agreement did provide for child support, yet, the children were unrepresented. Thus, if the husband’s statements were false, the children would in all probability be entitled to more child support th…
Authorities Cited
- Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1976)
- Bush v. Bush, 590 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)