HELEN G. COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE A. COLE, II, 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 trial court must recompute child support obligations using the correct formula for rotating custody cases, not split custody formulas.
[1] Child support calculations in rotating custody cases must follow the formula established in Jones v. …
[2] Formulas for split custody are inapplicable to rotating custody arrangements for child support calculations.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered rotating custody and calculated child support. The mother appealed, arguing the child support calculation was erroneous.…
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 Split Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*606] SILBERMAN, Judge.
Helen Cole appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She argues that the trial court erred in ordering rotating custody of the two minor children and in calculating child support. We affirm the custody determination without comment, but we reverse for recomputation of the child support obligations.
Mrs. Cole argues and Mr. Cole concedes that in computing child support, the trial court erroneously relied on the formulas discussed in Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and Winters v. Katseralis, 628 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We agree because Gingola and Winters deal with split custody (each parent has primary residential custody of one or more of the children) as opposed to rotating custody (custody of a child alternates between the parents).
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), established the following formula for computing and apportioning each party’s relative obligations for child support in rotating custody cases:
1) calculate the total child support award, and each parent’s share under the guidelines as it is presently done;
2) determine the amount of time each parent has the child and reduce it to a percentage, e.g. each parent has the child 50% of the time;
3) proportion the total child support award to each parent, based on the percentage of time each parent has the child with him or her; and
4) offset each parent’s dollar responsibility under the guidelines.
Id. at 1068.
The formula in Jones takes into account the requirements of section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), and the circumstances involved in rotating custody cases. We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of Jones; however, we conclude that the trial court must recompute the amount of child support and each party’s responsibility for child support, in accordance with section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1999), and the formula in Jones.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby C. Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…e this is essentially a rotating custody arrangement, in order to satisfy section 61.30, the formula for computing child support set out in Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), should have been applied here. See Cole v. Cole, 792 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (adopting the analysis in Jones). Under this formula, a trial court should: (1) calculate the total child support award and each parent’s share under the guidelines; (2) determine the amount of time each parent has the child…
-
Jaworski v. Jaworski, 972 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…d to each parent, based on the percentage of time each parent has the child with him or her; and (4) offset each parent’s dollar responsibility under the guidelines. Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Cole v. Cole, 792 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because the trial court failed to consider in its calculation the amount of time each parent spends with the children, on remand the trial court must recalculate the child support award in accordance with the formula establi…
Authorities Cited
- Winters v. Nadya Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)