STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF CATHLEEN STROCKBINE, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER R. STROCKBINE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a child support modification order because the trial court failed to make specific findings required by statute and did not explain its deviation from the child support guidelines.
A trial court must make specific findings regarding the children's needs, parents' financial status, and reasons for any deviation from child support guidelines, or its modification order cannot be reviewed on appeal.
[1] A trial court modifying child support below the statutory guidelines must enter written or specific oral findings explaining why the guidelines amount would be unjust or…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Without a finding as to the parties' income, we are unable to determine whether the awarded support departed from the guidelines. Assuming the trial court departed from the guidelines, we are further unable to determine if departure was justified.”
Court cited Jones v. Jones to illustrate the necessity of specific findings for appellate review of child support modifications.
The Department of Revenue appealed a trial court order that modified the appellee's child support obligation below the statutory guidelines without ad…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s order modifying Appellee’s child support obligation to a level below the child support guidelines. This court cannot properly review this issue because the trial court failed to make specific findings in the modification order, including the children’s needs, ages, stations in life, standard of living, and the financial status and ability of each parent to pay. § 61.30, Fla. Stat. For the trial court to have awarded an amount beyond the five percent leeway allowed from the presumptive guidelines amount, it was required to enter either a written finding or a specific finding on the record explaining why the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate, which is also absent in this case. Id.; see, e.g., Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (partially reversing and remanding order modifying child support where trial court’s written order and oral pronouncements were devoid of specific findings regarding the parties’ income: “Without a finding as to the parties’ income, we are unable to determine whether the awarded support departed from the guidelines. Assuming the trial court departed from the guidelines, we are further unable to determine if departure was justified_”). We, therefore, reverse the modification order and remand the case for a new hearing so that the parties may, if they choose, provide further evidence, and for the trial court to make findings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.