DEBORAH C. ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT C. ANDREWS, 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 affirmed a downward modification of child support where both parents agreed to the modification, but reversed and remanded to correct the percentage applied to secondary income from 28% to 33%.
When both parents agree to a modification of child support, the trial court need not require proof of a substantial change in circumstances, but the court must apply the correct percentage to all income sources.
[1] When both parents agree to a modification of child support, the trial court is not required to make the obligor prove a substantial change in circumstances.
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 intelligenceFather sought downward modification of child support based on reduced income, reduced child care costs, and unpredictable secondary income. Mother ini…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Deborah C. Andrews, the mother, appeals an order granting a downward modification of the child support obligation of Robert C. Andrews, the father. The Father requested a downward modification of child support on grounds of reduction in income, reduction in child care costs, and unpredictability of secondary income. The Mother agreed that the Father’s income was less than at the time of the dissolution of marriage, but initially disagreed with his request for a modification. The record, however, shows that the Mother, through counsel, agreed with the modification at the hearing. Faced with the agreement of the parents to a modification, the trial judge was not required to make the Father prove a substantial change in circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the modification.
We do find error, however, with the-percentage to be applied to the Father’s secondary income. The Father had income from employment as a school teacher and from three citrus-related, family businesses. The trial court erroneously determined that the percentage of child support to be paid from the latter income was twenty-eight percent. The correct percentage is thirty-three percent, the same percentage that applies to the Father’s primary income.
Accordingly, we affirm the modification, reverse the percentage as to the secondary income and remand with instructions to correct the percentage of the Father’s secondary income in the order modifying support.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.