STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF JANET STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES D. TUCKER, 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.
The Florida Department of Revenue appealed a trial court's decision to reduce a father's child support obligation to $125.00 per month instead of the presumptive guideline amount of $265.35. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the trial court's downward departure from the guidelines.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order because there was no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the downward departure from the presumptive child support guideline amount. The court remanded with directions to set the monthly child support obligation at $265.35, retroactive to December 1, 1994.
[1] A trial court's downward departure from presumptive child support guidelines must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A finding of financial dependency of a parent is required to justify a downward departure from child support guidelines based on the support of a dependent parent.
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“Although the evidence established a presumptive monthly obligation of $265.35 pursuant to the child support guidelines ($190.35 more than appellee had previously been ordered to pay), the trial court increased appellee's monthly obligation by only $50.00, to $125.00.”
Establishes the discrepancy between the guideline amount and what the trial court awarded
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 was asked to increase appellee's child support obligation. Evidence established that the presumptive monthly obligation under child su…
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order entered in response to a motion seeking an increase in appellee’s child support obligation. M-though the evidence established a presumptive monthly obligation of $265.35 pursuant to the child support guidelines ($190.35 more than appellee had previously been ordered to pay), the trial court increased appellee’s monthly obligation by only $50.00, to $125.00. This significant downward departure from the presumptive guidelines amount was based upon findings that appellee had “a dependent father with Alzheimer’s living at home” and had “remarried” and “ha[d] another family.” Assuming (without deciding) that either or both of those findings would be sufficient to sustain the action of the trial court were they supported by competent, substantial evidence, we are able to find no such evidence in the record. There is evidence that appellee’s father was disabled and living with appellee.
However, there is no evidence that the father was financially dependent upon appellee. See § 61.30(ll)(c), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Similarly, while there is evidence that appellee was married, there is no evidence that he and his present wife had any children. See § 61.30(12), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Because there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s reasons for a downward departure from appel-lee’s presumptive monthly obligation pursuant to the child support guidelines, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order setting appellee’s monthly child support obligation at $265.35, retroactive to December 1,1994, the effective date established by the order on appeal. REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kimberlee Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent, 680 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ion in which the former husband was challenging an increase in child support award on the basis of the financial needs of subsequent children. The cases of Hice v. Pace, 675 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and State, Department of Revenue v. Tucker, 661 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), also do not provide support for the former husband’s position. In Hice, the court was dealing with an upward departure, and in Tucker, the court declined to address the legal sufficiency of the reasons for the downward departure…
-
State v. Austin, 712 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order setting Appellee’s monthly child support obligation at $346.14, retroactive to August 5, 1997, the effective date established by the order on appeal. See Department of Revenue v. Tucker, 661 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B„ Senior Judge, concur.…