VINCENT S. SADD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LINDA K. SADD, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 2d DCA | 1998-10-28
No. 97-03855
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., QUINCE, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.
720 So. 2d 285 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1998)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in calculating child support by failing to account for alimony payments and by not stipulating future child support amounts.


Facts & Procedural History

The former husband appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage, distributing property, and awarding child support and alimony. He argued the chi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dissolving the Sadds’ sixteen-year marriage, making an equitable distribution of their property, providing for shared parental responsibility of the parties’ two minor children and awarding the former wife child support and permanent alimony. We find that the husband’s arguments regarding the trial court’s child support determination have merit and reverse on these two points. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.

The former husband challenges the trial court’s award of $1,000 per month permanent alimony to the former wife. The former wife contends that the court erred in not making her alimony award retroactive to the date she filed her petition for dissolution. We reject each of these points because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either instance. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Askegard v. Askegard, 584 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

The former husband also argues the trial court erred in calculating the amount of child support for which he is liable by failing to account for his alimony payment in determining the respective net incomes of the parties. Moreover, he points out that the final judgment fails to stipulate the amount of child support payable once the older child attains age eighteen. He is correct in these contentions.

Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with directions to amend the final judgment by (1) recalculating the child support obligation as provided for in section 61.30(2)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (1997), to reflect the respective income of the parties in light of the alimony obligation; and (2) stipulating the amount of child support payable after the older child attains age eighteen.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., QUINCE, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw