J. BRIAN KING, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHY ANN KING, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1999-05-12
No. 98-1539
Before COPE, LEVY, and GODERICH, JJ.
734 So. 2d 470 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Based on the child support guidelines in effect at the time of the modification proceedings, the general master properly deducted from the husband’s income, and added to the wife’s income, spousal support paid pursuant to court order in the marriage before the court. See § 61.30(2)(a)9, (3)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997); ch. 96-305, §§ 3, 6, Laws of Fla. (effective May 30, 1996). On this particular issue, the decisions in Lacaria v. Lacaria, 673 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Pelton v. Pelton, 617 So. 2d 714, 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), are no longer good law by reason of the 1996 statutory change.

The trial court erred in granting the former wife’s exception on this point. Further, because the general master’s factual findings are supported by competent evidence, we find that the trial court also erred in granting the former wife’s remaining exceptions to the general master’s report. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the former wife’s exceptions and remand with directions to reinstate the general master’s report and recommendations. See Goldfarb v. Agran, 546 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bragassa v. Bragassa, 505 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
    …amount of alimony received is to be added to the former wife’s income. The trial court also must subtract the former wife’s share of the child support duty to determine her income.”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in King v. King, 734 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also § 61.30(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. (detailing the calculation of gross and net income for child support purposes); Tresser v. Tresser, 737 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (concluding that the trial court abused its dis…
  • King v. King, 750 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
    …On Motion to Enforce Mandate PER CURIAM. We grant the motion to enforce this Court’s mandate in King v. King, 734 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The trial court is instructed to enter an order directing that the husband’s child support obligation will be $1,297 per month, retroactive to May 5, 1997. Further, pursuant to the reservation of jurisdiction contained in paragra…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw