NANCY S. MANNIX, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH D. MANNIX, 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 held that the trial court erred in its child support calculation by not considering day care expenses. The court affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
The former wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging several aspects including child support. The record was unclear as t…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1136] PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court’s child support award, determination of the husband’s income for support purposes, validation of the property settlement agreement, and denial of attorney’s fees. Additionally, the former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to attend counseling for domestic violence. We find error only in the trial court’s calculation of child support.
From our review of the record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered day care expenses in computing child support. Section 61.30(7), Florida Statutes, requires that 75% of day care costs be added to the child support obligation where day care is necessary due to employment, job search, and education.
We find support, however, for the trial court’s award of $100 per month for medical insurance for the minor child. The wife testified that she paid $10 per month to insure the minor child through the Florida Healthy Kids Program. She stated that better health insurance is available through her employer for $200 per month. Section 61.30(l)(b) provides that the court may require the obligor either to provide health insurance coverage or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance coverage for the minor child when group insurance coverage is reasonably available and provided by the obligee. Because the trial court has discretion in awarding insurance costs at a “reasonable rate,” we find no abuse of discretion is the amount set by the trial court. See Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 221, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
We reverse the final judgment only as to child support and remand with directions that the court consider whether child support should be recalculated to include day care expenses.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
WARNER, C.J., TAYLOR, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karimi v. Karimi, 867 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…to be paid by the Former Husband arises from the fact that the amended final judgment makes insufficient findings to allow us to review this issue in a meaningful way. See Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Mannix v. Mannix, 763 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). [*474] The amount of support ordered by the trial court might be perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. The problem is that neither this court, nor either party could determine or explain the methodology used by the trial…
-
Myron J. Newberry v. Newberry, 67 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…“[cjhild care costs incurred due to employment ... of either parent shall be added to the basic obligation.” Thus, the trial court should have included child care expenses in the former husband’s basic child support obligation. See Mannix v. Mannix, 763 So. 2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding section 61.30(7) requires day care costs to be added to the child support obligation where day care is necessary due to employment). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to include child care…
Authorities Cited
- Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)