POTHEN JACOB, APPELLANT,
v.
LALITHA JACOB, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Husband challenges a trial court's award of temporary child support to the Wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to award temporary support before complete discovery compliance, but reversed and remanded the amount awarded because the trial court failed to credit the Husband's payments for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding temporary support before full discovery compliance because rule 12.285(a) allows modification of rule 12.285 discovery requirements except for financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets, both of which were provided. However, the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of support because it failed to factor the Husband's payments for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep into the child support guidelines worksheet calculation.
[1] A trial court has discretion to modify discovery requirements for temporary financial relief under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285(a), except for provisions r…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding temporary child support before full compliance with all discovery requirements when immediate relief is necessary.
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“While rule 12.285(b) lists a number of disclosures required for temporary financial relief, rule 12.285(a) allows the trial court discretion to modify any part of rule 12.285 '[e]xcept for the provisions as to financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets.'”
Establishes that the trial court has discretion to waive some discovery requirements for temporary support, except financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Husband and Wife were in a family law dispute regarding child support for their two children. The Wife filed an emergency motion for temporary sup…
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 Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
Pothen Jacob (the Husband) appeals a nonfinal order awarding temporary child support to Lalitha Jacob (the Wife). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
At a hearing, the trial court first heard the Husband’s motion to compel the Wife’s compliance with discovery required by Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285(b). The trial court granted the motion and ordered the Wife to produce the required documentation within two weeks. The trial court then heard argument on the Wife’s emergency motion for temporary support. The Wife claimed that the Husband had not been paying any support for the care of their two children. The Husband primarily argued that (1) rule 12.285(b) required the trial court to obtain all discovery before it could grant temporary support and that (2) should the trial court entertain the Wife’s request for temporary support without the Wife’s required documentation, it should consider the Husband’s payments for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep to determine the amount of any awarded support. The trial court determined that an immediate “band-aid” was necessary and awarded temporary support to the Wife but invited the parties to return at any time if the ordered discovery supported subsequent modification. Utilizing the parties’ financial affidavits, child support guidelines worksheets, and testimony to determine an amount, the trial court awarded the Wife $3200 per month in temporary support. The trial court specifically found that the Husband had been paying for the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.
Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Chhouri v. Chhouri, 2 So.3d 987, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Applying that standard, we find no error with the trial court’s decision to award support prior to the Wife’s full compliance with discovery. While rule 12.285(b) lists a number of disclosures required for temporary financial relief, rule 12.285(a) allows the trial court discretion to modify any part of rule 12.285 “[e]xcept for the provisions as to financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets.” The record suggests that the Wife did comply with these two requirements. While it is the better practice to have full disclosure before awarding support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the Wife’s need for immediate relief temporarily outweighed some of the rule’s discovery requirements.
However, we hold that the trial court erred in determining the amount of temporary child support. Although the tidal court found that the Husband was paying for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep, the child support guidelines worksheet demonstrates that the trial court failed to factor in those contributions in determining the award. Such is an abuse of discretion. See Reilly *13 V. Reilly, 16 So.3d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the order determining the Wife’s entitlement to temporary support. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the amount, factoring the Husband’s payments for the marital home into the equation.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Julia v. Julia, 263 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…24 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the Second District held: When one party pays the mortgage payment or housing expenses of another party, it is considered an in kind contribution for purposes of the child support guidelines. Jacob v. Jacob, 26 So. 3d 11, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Although the trial court found that the [h]usband was paying for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep, the child support guidelines worksheet demonstrates that the trial court failed to factor in those contri…
-
Schafstall v. Schafstall, 211 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ntil the children reach the age of majority and that the former husband will be required to pay for the mortgage, taxes, and insurance for the marital home for the entire duration of the former wife’s exclusive occupancy of the home. Jacob v. Jacob, 26 So. 3d 11, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to consider the fact that the husband was paying for the marital home’s mortgage, utilities, and upkeep when completing the child support guidelines works…
-
Bond v. Bond, 224 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…d the child reside. We agree. When one party pays the mortgage payment or housing éxpenses of another party, it is considered an in kind contribution for purposes of the child support guidelines. § 61.30(2)(a)(13), Fla. Stat. (2016); Jacob v. Jacob, 26 So. 3d 11, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009);(“Although the trial court found that the [hjusband was paying for the marital home mortgage, utilities, and upkeep, the child support guidelines worksheet demonstrates that the trial court failed to factor in those contributi…
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
- Chhouri v. Adoline Chhouri, 2 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Reilly v. Reilly, 16 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)