DONNA ROONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL P. ROONEY, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-12-29
No. 99-01923
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J„ Concur.
750 So. 2d 118 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Donna Rooney appealed a child support award in a split custody case, challenging the formula used to calculate her ex-husband's obligation. While the appellate court affirmed the underlying calculation methodology, it discovered a typographical error in the award amount and remanded for correction.


Holding

The court affirmed the use of the split custody child support formula established in Gingola v. Velasco and Winters v. Katseralis, but remanded the case because a typographical error caused the monthly support amount to be calculated as $414.79 when it should have been $441.79.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's child support award calculated using the split custody formula articulated in Gingola v. …

[2] A typographical error in a child support award requires remand for correction.

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

Key Quotes

“When the combined net monthly income is $5,400, the guidelines support amount for three children is $2,037. That figure, divided by three, is $679 for each of the three children, or $1,358 for the two children in the father's care.”

Establishes the court's application of the split custody formula by calculating each child's pro-rata share and then allocating based on custody arrangement.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The parties had split custody of three children. The father's net monthly income was $4,363 and the mother's was $1,036, totaling $5,399. The father h…

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
NORTHCUTT, Judge.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Donna Rooney questions the circuit court’s child support award in a split custody situation. In particular, she challenges the court’s determination that Mr. Rooney’s child support obligation should be calculated according to the split custody child support formula articulated in Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We decline Ms. Rooney’s suggestion that we recede from the formula set forth in those cases in favor of that proposed by Judge Warner in her well-considered dissent in Simpson v. Simpson, 680 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Even so, when we recalculated the award using the undisputed underlying data, we discovered that Ms. Rooney was shortchanged due to a typographical error involving the transposition of numbers in the amount awarded. Instead of a monthly support amount of $414.79, the figure should be $441.79. Accordingly, we remand for this correction.

We calculated the child support obligation as follows. The father’s net monthly income of $4,363 and the mother’s in the amount of $1,036 total $5,399. The father’s share is 81%, and the mother’s is 19%. When the combined net monthly income is $5,400, the guidelines support amount for three children is $2,037. That figure, divided by three, is $679 for each of the three children, or $1,358 for the two children in the father’s care. The father’s obligation for the one child in the mother’s care is 81% of $679, or $549.99. The mother’s obligation for the two children who reside with the father is 19% of $1,358, or $258.02. The father’s basic child support obligation is the difference between the two figures,, or $291.97. This amount is reduced by a credit for the mother’s $19 share of the $100 paid by the father for health insurance for all three children.

The resulting figure must be adjusted for daycare expenses. After the statutory reduction, the father’s allowable daycare expense is $192.19, and the mother’s is $253.50. The father’s 81% share of the mother’s daycare expense is $205.34, and’ the mother’s 19% share of the father’s daycare expense is $36.52. The difference, $168.82, is added to the father’s support obligation.

To recapitulate, Mr. Rooney’s child support obligation equals $549.99 less Ms. Rooney’s basic obligation of $258.02, or $291.97, less a $19 credit for health insurance, and plus the daycare expense of $168.82. The correct award is $441.79.

Affirmed, but remanded for correction of a typographical error. FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J„ Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Ekow Tyler v. State, 826 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …his habitual offender sentences for possession of cocaine and delivery of cocaine. The State concedes that a habitual offender sentence is not permitted for possession of cocaine. See § 775.084(1)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); Washington v. State, 750 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We reverse this sentence and remand for imposition of a guidelines sentence. As to the sentence for delivery of cocaine, the State also concedes error because the evidence was insufficient to prove that Tyler qualified for habi…
  • Owens v. State, 792 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …. The state correctly concedes that the trial court erred and asks this court to reverse and remand for re-sentencing on count II, possession of cocaine, in case 98-4826. See Oliver v. State, 734 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Washington v. State, 750 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Daniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on count II, possession of cocaine. We reverse and remand for an evi…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw