FERNANDO MELO, APPELLANT,
v.
MABEL TOLEDO MELO, 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.
Fernando Melo appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's calculation of child support, award of permanent alimony, and life insurance requirement. The District Court of Appeal reverses and remands, finding multiple errors in the trial court's application of statutory factors and income calculations.
The trial court erred in calculating child support using gross rather than net income, in awarding permanent alimony without sufficient factual findings regarding statutory factors, in failing to deduct child support payments and medical insurance from appellant's income and add to appellee's income, and in requiring life insurance maintenance without findings of special circumstances. The judgment is reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with statutory requirements.
[1] A trial court errs in calculating child support by using gross income instead of net income.
[2] An award of permanent periodic alimony requires sufficient factual findings concerning statutory factors, even if the statutory language is tracked.
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“the trial court erred in failing to distinguish gross from net income, which is crucial to properly applying the guidelines.”
Establishes the fundamental error in using gross rather than net income for child support calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFernando Melo and Mabel Toledo Melo were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court attributed $150,000 in net income to appella…
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 Statutory Factors For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fernando Melo appeals from a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. We reverse.
First, as is apparent from the face of the final judgment, the trial court erred by attributing “the sum of $150,000 net [income] per year” to appellant for the purpose of calculating child support when that figure is actually appellant’s gross income. See Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314, 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that “the trial court erred in failing to distinguish gross from net income, which is crucial to properly applying the guidelines.”); Weiser v. Weiser, 782 So. 2d 986, 987, (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (child support for two children required to be recalculated based upon each parent’s net income).
Secondly, the trial court erred by awarding permanent periodic alimony without making sufficient factual findings concerning the statutory factors under section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (2001). Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 987-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Although the court tracked the language of section 61.08(2), it neglected to make any findings of fact pertaining to those factors. Benters v. Benters, 655 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Even if permanent alimony is justified in this case, we cannot review the appropriateness of the amount absent sufficient factual findings. Id.
It should also be noted that the appellee properly conceded in its brief that in determining the award of child support, the trial court erred by failing to first deduct the award from appellant’s income and then failing to add it to the income of appellee. See § 61.30(2)(a)(9), (3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2001). Appellant’s payment of medical insurance on behalf of the children should similarly have been deducted. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Finally, the court erred by requiring the appellant to maintain life insurance without first making findings as to the existence of special circumstances. Solomon v. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McDaniel, 653 So. 2d at 1078.
The Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lift v. Lift, 1 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ear whether the court imputed income to him or factored the husband’s potential earnings into the alimony award. Thus, even if permanent alimony is justified in this case, this court cannot review the appropriateness of the amount. See Melo v. Melo, 864 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). See also Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Absent special circumstances, however, the trial court may not impose such requirement. See Massam v. Massam, 993 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Melo v. Melo, 864 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). “ ‘Such special circumstances include a spouse potentially left in dire financial straits after the death of the obli-gor spouse due to ... ill health and/or lack of employ…
-
Jericka v. Jericka, 198 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…e that the order on appeal in this case is bereft of the requisite factual findings and, with the exception of the findings regarding the Former Husband’s financial affidavits, merely tracked the language found in section 61.08(2). See Melo v. Melo, 864 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)... But we are compelled to affirm as the Former Husband has failed to provide a transcript or statement-under rule 9.200(b)(4). This failure precludes this court from reviewing [*663] the factual or legal basis for the trial…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Stanford R. Solomon v. Sheila A.B. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Thilem v. Thilem, 662 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Weiser v. Weiser, 782 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Benters v. Benters, 655 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)