STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF CYNTHIA BUNTING, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVIS S. CAIN, 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 determination that child support guidelines did not apply to a modification petition. The court reversed, holding that guidelines apply to modification cases but may be deviated from only upon written findings explaining why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
The child support guidelines apply to modification petitions. While trial courts may deviate from guideline amounts when more than a five percent variance is justified, such deviation requires a written or specific on-the-record finding explaining why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Specific findings are necessary regarding how particular expenses impact the payor's ability to pay the guideline amount.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings explaining why ordering the presumptive child support amount would be unjust or inappropriate when deviating more than 5 percent…
[2] A party's expenses exceeding their income is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for a complete waiver of child support obligations.
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“The guidelines apply to petitions for modification of child support.”
Establishes the primary holding that modification petitions are governed by 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 intelligenceAppellee Cain was originally ordered to pay $391.50 monthly in child support. His obligation was reduced to $154.28 plus $100 in arrearages due to inj…
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 Deviation From Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order determining that the child support guidelines are not applicable to appellant’s petition for modification. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
When the marriage of Bunting and Cain was dissolved, appellee was ordered to pay $391.50 per month as child support for one child. Subsequently, due to injury and unemployment, his obligation was reduced to $154.28 per month plus $100 per month in arrearages. Appellee again became employed, and appellant filed a petition for modification of child support.
At hearing, testimony was presented of the child’s increased needs and appellee’s current employment status and earnings. In addition, appellee stated he has had a leg prosthesis all of his life which is in need of replacement, at an estimated cost of $7800. Appellee also said he believed he could now pay $300 per month in child support. The guidelines indicated appellee’s presumptive obligation was $410 per month. The trial court found that the guidelines did not apply in this case, and ordered appellee to pay $250 per month in child support.
The guidelines apply to petitions for modification of child support. See § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. The. trial court is permitted to deviate more than five percent from the presumptive guideline amount “upon a written finding, or a specific finding-on the record, explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.” Id. See also Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). While we believe the trial court, in determining whether payment of the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate, may consider appellee’s apparent need to replace his prosthesis, see § 61.30(ll)(a), Fla. Stat., specific findings are required as to the impact of this expense on appellee’s ability to pay the guideline amount. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Riley v. Parker, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Without such findings, meaningful appellate review is not possible. See Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We note that appellee himself testified he thought he could pay $300 per month, and suggest the court also should consider this testimony on remand.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…s more than five percent from the guidelines [*570] without making specific written factual findings justifying such an award. See McGhee v. Childress, 724 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State, Dept. of Revenue, By and on Behalf of Bunting v. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Touchstone v. Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We find that the final judgment’s explanation for ordering the husband to pay the wife child support in the amoun…
-
Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Without specific findings, meaningful appellate review is not possible, and we are obligated to reverse and remand for such findings to be made. State, Department of Revenue v. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Laurie also contends that the trial court erroneously awarded Bruce sixty-six percent of the marital assets, and failed to enter specific findings valuing those assets or justifying the- court’s unequal distribution. [*168…
-
Mary McGHEE & the State of Fla. v. Childress, 724 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…from such guideline amount only upon a written finding, or a specific finding on the record, explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.” See State, Dept. of Revenue By and On Behalf of Bunting v. Cain, 675 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Stewmon v. Stewmon, 654 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In its order, the court stated that the deviation from the-statutory guidelines is “based on the fact that the appellee’s salary is currently at the minimum wage.” However,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Touchstone v. Myron Lavelle Touchstone, 579 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Riley v. Parker, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Harrelson v. State, 624 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)