CHARLES A. STANTON, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNADETTE F. STANTON, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution and child support award in most respects but reversed and remanded the child support calculation, finding that the trial court's award of $1,103.00 per month exceeded the statutory guideline amount of $896.00 per month by more than five percent.
The court held that the trial court erred in computing child support because the award of $1,103.00 per month exceeded the guideline minimum of $1,179.00 total support (with the former husband's share being $896.00 per month or 76%) by $207.00 per month, exceeding the statutory five percent deviation allowance. Accordingly, the case was remanded for correction of the child support award.
[1] A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test.
[2] The percentage share of child support is determined by dividing each parent’s net income by their combined net incomes.
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“A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test.”
Establishes the legal standard governing child support awards in Florida
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 amended a final judgment of dissolution, lowering the former husband's monthly net income from $3,120.00 to $2,750.00. Based on this r…
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 Income cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Appellant, Charles A. Stanton (Former Husband), petitioner below, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding equitable distribution and child support. We affirm in all respects except one.
In an amendment to the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court lowered Former Husband’s monthly net income from $3,120.00 to $2,750.00. As a result, the trial court reduced Former Wife’s rehabilitative alimony award, but increased child support from $957.00 per month to $1,103.00 per month. Based upon the trial court’s finding of Former Husband’s monthly net income to be $2,750.00 and Former Wife’s monthly net income to be $860.00, the minimum child support needed should be determined by the combined monthly net income of $3,610.00.
A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197,1203 (Fla.1980); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Moreover, the percentage share of child support must be determined by dividing each parent’s net income by their combined net incomes and section 61.30(9), Florida Statutes (1991) must be used to determine each parent’s actual dollar share. Silver v. Borrelli, 584 So. 2d 1077, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Pursuant to section 61.30(6), Florida Statutes (1993), a combined monthly net income of $3,610.00 affords two children with a minimum support of $1,179.00. Each parent’s percentage share of the child support need shall be determined by dividing each parent’s net income by the combined net income. § 61.30(9), Fla.Stat. (1993). Thus, Former Husband’s percentage of responsibility is $896.00 per month, or seventy-six percent of $1,179.00. The trial court’s child support award exceeds this amount by $207.00 per month. Moreover, this amount exceeds the guideline amount by more than five percent. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Accordingly, the trial court erred in its computation of child support. We therefore remand for correction of the child support award to comport with the child support guidelines.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…EXCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT INCOME, AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS. A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test. Stanton v. Stanton, 648 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Section 61.30(9), Florida Statutes, provides the statutory formula which must be used to determine each parent’s actual dollar share. Stanton, 648 So. 2d at 1234. Without any specific findings regarding the husband’s net…
-
Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…hild support award of $1,892, which the trial court adjusted to $1,750 per month. The trial court’s decisions on alimony and child support are subject to review for abuse of discretion. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983); Stanton v. Stanton, 648 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). A review of the record in this ease demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion in making the instant support awards. The husband has not cited, and we have not found, any authority that would support the trial cour…
-
Kareff v. Kareff, 943 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…easonableness test.... Section 61.30(9), Florida Statutes, provides the statutory formula which must be used to determine each parent’s actual dollar share.” Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So. 2d 867, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Stanton v. Stanton, 648 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)). Whether a trial court’s mathematical computations are correct is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. Cameron v. Dickey, 871 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In determining child support, the trial court ca…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Silver v. Borrelli, 584 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)