KIRBY C. RAINSBERGER, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANA RAINSBERGER N/K/A DIANA MASON, 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.
A former husband appeals a child support modification order, arguing the trial court failed to apply amended child support guidelines accounting for shared custody time and improperly required payment of expenses beyond guideline support. The court reversed, holding that the amended guidelines must be applied and that courts cannot impose additional expenses beyond the guideline amount when substantial shared custody exists.
The trial court erred by failing to apply the amended guidelines and by not offsetting child support based on the substantial shared custody time. When a child spends a substantial amount of time with both parents under a rotating custody arrangement, the court must apply the Jones formula to proportion the guideline support based on each parent's percentage of custody time. Additionally, courts cannot require payment of expenses outside the scope of child support guidelines, as this would exceed the maximum guideline support.
[1] A trial court must apply the child support guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when the amendment becomes effective.
[2] A trial court is required to vary the child support guideline amount if a child is required to spend a substantial amount of time with both the primary and secondary resi…
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 intelligence“A trial court must apply the child support guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when the amendment becomes effective.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that amended child support guidelines apply to pending cases when the amendment becomes effective.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a custody agreement providing the wife residential custody for nine consecutive days followed by the husband's custody for five consec…
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 Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
The former husband, Kirby Rainsberger (“the Husband”), appeals from an order modifying child support. Because the trial court erred in failing to utilize the child support guidelines that were in effect at the time of the hearing and in ordering the Husband to pay certain expenses in addition to the support, we reverse.
The trial court concluded that the Husband was not entitled to any offset in child support based on the amount of time he spent with the child. The Husband argues that he is entitled to an offset under the amended version of section 61.30, Florida Statutes, which became effective on October 1,1999. We agree. “A trial court must apply the child support guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when the amendment becomes effective.” Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So. 2d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Whight v. Whight, 635 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The amended version of the statute, which was in effect at the time of the hearing of April 4, 2000, was the correct law to be applied.
Under the amended version of the statute, a trial court is required to vary the guideline amount if a child is required “to spend a substantial amount of time with the primary and secondary residential parents.” § 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). Here, the parties’ custody agreement called for the Wife to have residential custody for nine consecutive days, followed by the Husband having custody for five consecutive days, and for the child to spend one-half of the summer, approximately five weeks, with each parent. Thus, because 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 and reduce it to a percentage; (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. Jones, 747 So. 2d at 1068; Cole, 792 So. 2d at 606. Because the trial court’s calculation did not account for the amount of time that the child spent with the Husband, on remand the trial court should recalculate the support using the formula set out in Jones.
The Husband also argues that the trial court’s order erroneously requires him to pay, in addition to child support, half of all specified expenses which are considered outside the scope of child support as outlined in the court’s February 1995 order. These expenses include summer activities and extracurricular activities approved by both parties. He asserts that by continuing this provision, he is being ordered to pay in excess of the maximum guideline support. We agree. On remand, the trial court should remove the requirement that the Husband be responsible for expenses considered outside the scope of child support.
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…lation, based on the current financial status of the parties, is required. See Rule 12.285(j), 12.902(e). The trial court must apply the guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when an amendment becomes effective. Rainsberger v. Rainsbgrger, 819 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285© requires the worksheet and provides: Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. If the case involves child support, the parties shall file with the court at or prior to a hearing to establi…
-
Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…h the father.1 Consequently, the plain language of the statute required the trial court to adjust the father’s child support obligation in accordance with the legislative requirement. See § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003); Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). [*769] The trial court declined to apply the adjustment, reasoning that in the past, the father had not spent 40 percent of overnights yearly with the children. That was error. See Migliore (finding that although father hist…
-
Zepeda v. Zepeda, 32 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…by a child from supplemental security income.” § 61.30(ll)(a)(2). The statute also mandates an adjustment in support when “a parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year.” § 61.30(11)(b); Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, the circuit court was not authorized to completely bypass the child support guidelines. We reverse the temporary support award and remand for the court to fashion temporary child support in a manner consistent with section…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whight v. Tymme Douglas Whight, 635 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Jones v. Johnson, 747 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Cole v. Cole, 792 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)