YVONDIA HERRING, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAIRMONT O. ASHBY, 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.
Court reversed child support award for lack of required findings of fact regarding parties' income and child support computation, while affirming all other aspects of the dissolution judgment.
A trial court must include specific findings of fact regarding the actual income of the parties and any adjustments thereto to support a child support award, and without such findings, the award cannot be reviewed for compliance with statutory guidelines.
[1] A trial court's child support award must be supported by specific findings of fact regarding the parties' actual income and any adjustments thereto to permit meaningful a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“If a trial court does not articulate findings regarding the actual income of the parties or any adjustments to income, a reviewing court cannot ascertain whether a child support award is within the guidelines.”
Court explaining the requirement for findings of fact in child support determinations.
Yvondia Herring appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, asserting various errors by the trial court. The judgment included a child suppo…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
Yvondia Herring asserts the commission of a variety of errors by the trial court in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We detect only one matter that requires correction.
Because there are no findings of fact contained in the judgment related to child support, as required by section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2003), we conclude that we must reverse on this point. If a trial court does not articulate findings regarding the actual income of the parties or any adjustments to income, a reviewing court cannot ascertain whether a child support award is within the guidelines. See Manolakos v. Manolakos, 871 So. 2d 258, 2004 WL 384151 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb.11, 2004); Levi v. Levi 780 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Here, there are no findings concerning the amount of income of either party, nor are we provided with any information concerning the manner in which the award of child support was computed. We are, thus, unable to examine meaningfully the matter of imputed income and the total amount of child support awarded. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all respects except for the award of child support, and remand to the trial court for specific findings to support the imputed income amount and the total amount of child support.
AFFIRMED in part,' REVERSED in part, REMANDED.
SHARP, W., and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t for calculating child support or explaining how the calculation was performed. This also requires reversal. See Guida v. Guido, 870 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing child support award for necessary income findings); Herring v. Ashby, 869 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (reversing for income findings and explanation of method used in arriving at award). This is true even though there is no transcript of the proceedings below. See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). T…
-
Holaway v. Holaway, 197 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ld support owed to Wife. When a trial court fails to explain the calculations it used to arrive at the parties’ imputed incomes in determining an award of child support, this court has remanded to the trial court for clarification. Herring v. Ashby, 869 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In the instant case, the trial court imputed income to Husband without explaining its calculations. . . On the issue of the equitable distribution…
Authorities Cited
- Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Manolakos v. Amy S. Manolakos, Gold Coast Chiropractic Ctr., P.A., 871 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)