JOSEPH H. BUHLER, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN J. BUHLER, 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.
Father appeals trial court's denial of child support reduction despite having visitation exceeding 40% of overnights annually. The court holds that Florida Statute 61.30(11)(b) mandatorily requires adjustment of child support when a noncustodial parent exercises substantial time (at least 40% of overnights) with children, and reverses the trial court's refusal to apply the statutory adjustment.
The court held that when a visitation order provides that a noncustodial parent will spend at least 40% of overnights with the child, the trial court is mandatorily required to adjust the child support obligation downward in accordance with section 61.30(11)(b), Florida Statutes, regardless of whether the parent historically exercised visitation at that level.
[1] A court must adjust child support when a shared parental arrangement provides that each child spends a substantial amount of time with each parent.
[2] A substantial amount of time for child support adjustment purposes means the noncustodial parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year.
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“whenever a particular shared parental arrangement provides that each child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent, the court shall adjust any award of child support”
This is the plain language of the controlling statute requiring mandatory adjustment of child support when visitation meets the substantial time threshold.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Buhler, the father, had a visitation order providing that the children would spend approximately 48% of the overnights in a given year with him…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Joseph H. Buhler, the father, appeals the trial court’s order modifying his child support obligation. He contends that the trial court should have reduced his support obligation pursuant to section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), because he has visitation with the children a substantial amount of time. We agree and reverse.
Section 61.30(11)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), states that “[wjhenever a particular shared parental arrangement provides that each child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent, the court shall adjust any award of child support....” Section 61:30(11)(b)(10), Florida Statutes (2003), defines a “substantial amount of time” to mean “that the noncustodial parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year.” See Guttler v. Guttler, 798 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Applying this provision is mandatory. Cheverie v. Cheverie, 898 So. 2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Migliore v. Harris, 848 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Here, the visitation order reflects that the children will spend more than 40 percent of the overnights with 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). 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 historically had exercised visits that amounted to less than 40 percent, the agreed visitation schedule gave father more than 40 percent overnights, and, therefore, the court was required to calculate the child support award pursuant to the “substantial time” formula); see also Keeley v. Keeley, 899 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that former husband was entitled to downward adjustment of future child support payments, where agreed visitation schedule gave him sufficient overnight visits to satisfy statutory requirements, should he exercise such rights, and where former wife retained right to seek retroactive modification of child support should he fail to do so); Cheverie (holding that former husband whose court-ordered parenting time with child was greater than 40 percent of overnights in year was entitled to downward departure of child support).
If, in the future, the father does not regularly exercise at least 40 percent of the overnight visits, the mother may seek a modification of child support pursuant to section 61.30(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which considers a noncustodial parent’s failure to exercise visitation as a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the award of child support, and provides for retroactive application back to the date that the father first failed to regularly exercise at least that level of visitation. See Keeley; Chev-erie; Migliore.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court adjust the father’s child support obligation in accordance with section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (2005).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . The supplemental final judgment provides that the children will spend approximately .48 percent of the overnights available in a given year with the father.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. Reese J. Henderson, 162 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…or graduated from high school. Failure to credit Former Wife with substantial overnights in the temporary child support order Last, we address the trial court’s calculation of Former Wife’s temporary child support obligation. In Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we ruled that a trial court must reduce the support obligation of a parent who has visitation for a “substantial amount of time” with a child. Under section 61.30(11)(b)8., Florida Statutes, a “substantial amount of time means t…
-
Buhler v. Buhler, 83 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…sed, finding the trial court erred in utilizing a historical methodology and holding the court should have reduced the child support obligation in accordance with the legislative substantial time formula under section 61.30(ll)(b). Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767, 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Prophetically, we noted: If, in the future, the father does not regularly exercise at least 40 percent of [*792] the overnight visits, the mother may seek a modification of child support pursuant to section 61.80(ll)(c), F…
-
Edrulfo Antonio Largaespada v. Largaespada, 920 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…on in support. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review dismissed, 846 So. 2d 1148 (Fla.2003); Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review denied, 842 So. 2d 844 (Fla.2003); see generally Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) and cases cited; Harwood v. Ying Li 909 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Santiago v. Santiago, 830 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We therefore reverse the order below and remand with directions to compute and effect the reduction…
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
- Keeley v. Keeley, 899 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Migliore v. Harris, 848 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Guttler v. Dona Guttler, 798 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Kirby C. Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Canady v. State, 898 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)