PAUL J. AUST, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN B. AUST, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1994-09-30
No. 93-2091
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
644 So. 2d 536 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Paul Aust appeals a final dissolution judgment awarding his ex-wife Lynn permanent alimony of $2,000/month and child support of $2,969/month for their two young daughters. The appellate court affirms the equitable distribution and alimony awards but reverses and remands the child support award as excessive under Florida's statutory guidelines.


Holding

The court affirmed the equitable distribution and alimony awards but held that the child support award of $2,969/month was excessive and reversed that portion, remanding for recalculation. The permissible range under the guidelines should not exceed $2,195.55/month (21% of Paul's income plus a permitted 5% deviation).


Headnotes

[1] Child support awards may be adjusted upward for factors such as private school tuition, but only if such needs cannot be met by an award five percent above the minimum gu…

[2] A trial court's child support award approaching thirty-four percent of a parent's net monthly income may be excessive without findings justifying such an award, especiall…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“the award of child support in this case approaches thirty-four percent of Paul's net monthly income. This appears excessive because, in this ease, the children have no special needs or problems to justify such an award.”

Establishes the appellate court's basis for finding the child support award excessive despite the trial court's stated intention to apply the statutory guidelines.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Paul and Lynn Aust were married for ten years and had two daughters aged three and six at dissolution. Paul worked as a pilot for Northwest Airlines e…

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.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Paul Aust appeals from the final order of dissolution terminating his ten-year marriage to Lynn Aust. He raises numerous points on appeal concerning the equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets, the award of $2,000.00 per month permanent alimony to Lynn, and the amount of child support ($2,969.00 per month) awarded Lynn for the care of their two daughters, who were three and six years old, at the time of the dissolution. We find no material reversible error in this judgment, except for the amount of child support awarded below.

Testimony and evidence in this record support a finding that Paul’s net monthly income from his employment (a pilot for Northwest Airlines) as defined by the child support guidelines, totals $8,727.00 per month (excluding any investment income). The court did not impute any income to Lynn, because she was earning only $647.00 (net) per month as a part-time flight attendant for Delta Airlines. Lynn testified if she worked full-time, the cost of child care would exceed her increased earnings, and prior to the dissolution, the parties agreed Lynn would devote most of her time and energy to raising their children.

In the final judgment, the court said it intended to award as child support approximately twenty-one percent of Paul’s net monthly income, pursuant to the child support guidelines. See § 61.80(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). As stated above, it did not impute any income to Lynn, nor include in its calculation her net part-time earnings. The court also said it intended to adjust “upward” Paul’s monthly child support obligation because, prior to the dissolution, the parties contemplated their daughters would attend private schools, and it was in their best interest to do so. See § 61.30(11)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993).

Assuming for the sake of argument that the court was correct in not including any part-time earnings for Lynn, or additional imputed net earnings, in the child support calculation, the award of child support in this case approaches thirty-four percent of Paul’s net monthly income. This appears excessive because, in this ease, the children have no special needs or problems to justify such an award. And the court made no such findings.

Pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time this judgment of dissolution was rendered, section 61.30(6) establishes a minimum standard child support award for two children at $2,088.00 per month (net income of $8,700.00) and $2,094.00 (net income of $8,750.00). § 61.30(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). A deviation of five percent is permissible without a 'written specific finding as to why the guidelines sum is inappropriate. § 61.30(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). Applying the guidelines to this case, the child support award should not exceed $2,195.55 per month.1

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed in all regards, but we remand for a recalculation of the amount of child support to be awarded Lynn for the care of the parties’ children. The court may take additional testimony in order to consider the parties’ current earnings in recalculating child support. It may also consider any special needs of the children (such as private school tuition), which cannot be met by an award five percent above the minimum amount set in the guidelines.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . This includes five percent over the minimum amount.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fullerton v. Fullerton, 709 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …ect child support such as housing, life insurance benefits, private schooling, and so on, the cost of indirect support must be added to the amount of direct support awarded when calculating the total amount of child support awarded. In Aust v. Aust, 644 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the trial court added the cost of private schooling to the guidelines amount, which resulted in an upward departure greater than five percent. This court reversed and remanded, noting that a deviation of greater than five percen…
  • Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
    …0(6), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). By ordering the father to pay tuition, the court in effect adjusted the minimum child support award upward based on “[ejxtraordinary ... educational ... expenses.” § 61.30(ll)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Cf. Aust v. Aust, 644 So. 2d 536, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (on remand trial court could “consider any special needs of the children (such as private school tuition), which cannot be met by an award five percent above the minimum amount set in the guidelines”). We conclude that “the…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw