SANDRA JOSEPH, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK JOSEPH, 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 a trial court abused its discretion by reducing child support without making explicit findings and conclusions to explain the ruling.
The trial court ordered a significant decrease in child support from $826 to $400 without providing any explanation or findings regarding the parties'…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*986] FARMER, C.J.
We reverse a final order modifying child support. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a decrease in child support from $826 to $400, without making any findings and conclusions to explain its ruling. Without explicit findings as to the parties’ respective incomes, and explicit legal conclusions as to how the court decided that a reduction was required and an explanation as to how the court calculated the modified amount of child support, the outcome seems arbitrary, especially as it reduced the father’s support obligation by more than fifty percent.
As this court held in Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994):
“While we give full weight to the exercise of the trial court’s sound discretion, the only way to evaluate its discretion is for the trial court to make explicit findings either on the record or by written order. The child support statute mandates this and meaningful appellate review requires it.”
636 So. 2d at 869; see also Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (order modifying child support payments failed to include finding as to amount of income used to calculate child support, and thus remand was necessary for purpose of making such finding).
We therefore reverse for the entry of an order making explicit findings and conclusions to enable us to review the order. Because of the amount of time elapsing since the evidentiary hearing, the trial court is authorized to receive additional evidence updating the critical facts.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. Violeta M. Vazquez, 922 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…n it imputed income of $5,650.00 without setting forth the amount and source of the imputed income. The standard of review for an order denying modification of a support obligation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Joseph v. Joseph, 871 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In considering the imputation of income, the trial court’s findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We recently held that although a trial court is free t…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Denise Kaiser v. Kaiser, 890 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…and refused to impute income to the [father].” The trial court issued an order denying DOR’s motion, and DOR timely appealed. The standard of review of a trial court’s order to decrease child support is [*367] abuse of discretion. Joseph v. Joseph, 871 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). There is an even more stringent standard of review when a party tries to decrease support from a prior agreement, see Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla.1992). “To modify child support a payor must establish a subs…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)