PATRICIA J. WILCOX, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVAN RAY WILCOX, 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.
Patricia Wilcox appealed a divorce judgment challenging the equitable distribution of marital property and child support award. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court failed to make the specific factual findings required by Florida statute to support its distribution and child support decisions.
The trial court erred by failing to make specific written findings of fact required by section 61.075(3) to support its equitable distribution plan and by failing to set forth factual findings concerning the parties' incomes and reasons for deviating from child support guidelines as required by section 61.30(l)(a).
[1] A judgment distributing marital assets or liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment.
[2] Statutory requirements for specific written findings of fact in a dissolution judgment are intended to clarify the rationale for the distribution of marital assets and li…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment”
Establishes the statutory requirement for specific written findings in equitable distribution cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia and Sylvan Wilcox were divorcing. Patricia moved to Wisconsin, raising issues regarding childcare costs and transportation expenses. The tria…
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
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Patricia J. Wilcox appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Sylvan Ray Wilcox. She challenges the trial court’s equitable distribution of marital property and the award of child support, asserting that the final judgment lacks the requisite specific findings mandated by law. We concur and reverse.
We begin with a review of the equitable distribution plan established by the final judgment. Our legislature has required that in a contested dissolution of marriage action “any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment.” § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
The statute requires the trial court to make specific written findings of fact when identifying marital assets, liabilities, non-marital assets, and their respective valuations. The legislative policy to be implemented by this statute is to make clear to the reviewing court and the parties the rationale underlying the distribution of marital assets and liabilities. § 61.075(3)(d).
Here the final judgment contains no factual findings as required by section 61.075(3); this is error. See Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Next, we review the child support award.
The trial court stated in the final judgment that it deviated from the child support guidelines, finding that the wife voluntarily chose to move to Wisconsin, that the cost of day care in Wisconsin was extreme, and that the parties incurred transportation costs.
Section 61.30(l)(a) permits deviation from the child support guidelines in the trial court’s discretion when the trial court has considered all relevant factors and has made the necessary specific finding on the record explaining why the guideline amount would be inappropriate. Here, however, the final judgment fails to set forth factual findings concerning the parties’ actual incomes or any adjustments to income. This failure prohibits a reviewing court from ascertaining whether the child support award was either within the guideline standard or trial court’s discretionary range. See Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 988-989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Further, we point out that a parent’s voluntary relocation, under certain circumstances, does not constitute a basis for a downward reduction in child support. See Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Chapoteau v. Chapoteau, 659 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment, except that portion dissolving the marriage of the parties, and remand for the trial court to make the appropriate requisite statutory findings to support its equitable distribution plan and its award of child support.
PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…d support guidelines. Where the trial court fails to set forth findings regarding the parties’ actual incomes or adjustments to income, an appellate court cannot ascertain whether a child support award is within the guidelines. See Wilcox v. Wilcox, 729 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(holding that support calculations must be based on net income. The use of gross figures is error). Under these circumstances, this Court cannot properly review the or…
-
Wilcox v. Sylvan Ray Wilcox, 791 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge. Patricia Jacqueline Wilcox (the former wife) appeals from an amended final judgment entered after remand by this court in Wilcox v. Wilcox, 729 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Wilcox I, we reversed the equitable distribution plan and the award of child support, and remanded for the trial court to make the appropriate requisite statutory findings. On remand, the trial court did not hold an evidentiar…
-
Elyse Marie Tramontano Walker v. Walker, 827 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…rcuit court must make specific findings concerning the attorney hours expended and the reasonableness of fees). Without such factual findings, we cannot ascertain whether the circuit court abused its discretion in this regard. See Wilcox v. Wilcox, 729 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to take additional evidence on these points and to reevaluate whether and to what extent the challenged loans are to be treated as marital debts. If the court determines tha…
Authorities Cited
- Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Dushan Drakulich v. Branka Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Stoutamire v. State, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Chapoteau v. Jean-Rene Chapoteau, 659 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Chastain v. Scandinavian Health Spas & Am. States Ins., 659 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)