GERHARDT KASPER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY CORNELIUS, 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 court reversed a post-dissolution order finding mathematical errors in the calculation of child support arrearages and contempt findings, requiring remand for proper computation.
A trial court's calculation of child support arrearages that contains mathematical errors constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand for recalculation.
[1] Incorrect calculation of child support arrearages constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand for proper computation.
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 intelligenceIn a post-final judgment dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court determined the former husband owed $2,280.84 in child support arrearages …
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Former Husband appeals from a post-final judgment of dissolution of marriage order which determined he owed Former Wife $2,280.84 in child support arrearages, found him in contempt for failure to comply with prior child support obligations, and set a purge amount accordingly. Of the several issues raised on appeal, he argues that the court made mathematical errors in computing these arrearages. We agree and reverse.
The trial court set up the final judgment by setting forth each monthly installment of the various components of support due, the amounts actually paid by the Former Husband, and the amounts which were either waived or abated by oral agreements between the parties. Our review of the record, however, shows that an error exists as to the total amount of arrearages as determined by the trial court, for the numbers simply do not add up. As a result, we reverse and remand for a proper computation of same. See Taylor v. Lasley, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(holding incorrect calculation of child support arrearages constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal). In this regard, we also reverse the finding of contempt, for such a proper purge amount may not be determined until the court correctly calculates what Former Husband owes.
As to the other issues raised on appeal, we affirm as unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
DELL and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodgers v. Diederichsen, 820 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…that the ar-rearage of child support amounted to $9,374. In addition, the court ordered the father to pay the mother’s attorney’s fees. The trial court abused its discretion by miscalculating the retroactive child support. See Kasper v. Cornelius, 731 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that the trial court abuses its discretion in incorrectly calculating child support and any corresponding arrearage). The court’s two temporary orders cover the time period from November 2000 to July 2001. Thus, the tria…
-
Kai Uwe Thier v. State, 84 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ncorporating a response from the state into the trial court’s ruling, if the state has provided those portions of the record refuting the prisoner’s claims with particularity and has attached the pertinent portions of the record. See Evans v. State, 731 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed. WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Taylor v. Lasley, 666 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)