GLORIA L. WHITTINGHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER A. WHITTINGHAM, 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 marriage dissolution appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's child support award because the final judgment failed to include findings regarding the parties' incomes and did not address required health care and ancillary costs. The court affirmed the remaining portions of the judgment dissolving the marriage.
The court reversed the child support portion of the judgment because the trial court failed to make required findings regarding the parties' incomes and failed to address health care coverage and other ancillary costs. The remaining portions of the divorce judgment were affirmed.
[1] A child support award is facially erroneous and subject to reversal when the trial court fails to make findings of fact regarding the parties' incomes.
[2] A trial court must make findings of fact concerning the incomes of the parties to determine if a child support award is within statutory guidelines.
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“when determining child support a trial court is required to make findings of fact regarding the incomes of the parties because such findings are required in order to determine whether the support award departs from the guidelines”
Establishes the mandatory nature of income findings in 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 intelligenceGloria Whittingham appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Christopher Whittingham. The trial court awarded child support to the Husband …
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 Care Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Gloria Whittingham, the Wife, appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Christopher Whittingham. We. reverse the portion of the final judgment awarding child support to the Husband because the judgment fails to include any findings concerning the incomes of the parties, and therefore, we cannot determine whether the child support award is within the guidelines established in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2007). We do not find merit in the other issues raised by the Wife and affirm as to those issues without further discussion.
Section 61.30 sets forth guidelines as to the amount of child support which should be awarded based on the monthly incomes of the parties. If a trial court awards child support which deviates more than five percent from the guidelines, it must make a written finding explaining why the guidelines amount would be inappropriate or unjust. § 61.30(l)(a). Consequently, when determining child support a trial court is required to make findings of fact regarding the incomes of the parties because such findings are required in order to determine whether the support award departs from the guide*240lines. Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So.3d 136, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). When a trial court fails to make findings regarding the parties’ incomes, the final judgment is facially erroneous, and although there is no transcript of the hearing in the present case, the lack of a transcript does not preclude reversal. Id.; see Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So.2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that the final judgment was facially erroneous where it did not make any findings as to the net income of the parties for the purpose of calculating child support and it did not explain how the calculation was performed).
We also note that when establishing the child support award, the trial court failed to address health care coverage for the minor child as required by section 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2007). The order also does not address child care costs and noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses, and we cannot determine if the trial court considered these costs. See § 61.30(7), (8).
We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand this case for the trial court to recalculate the child support award and enter a new order specifying the basis for the award. The trial court must also consider child care costs, health insurance costs, and noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cash v. Cash, 122 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…tion 61.30(1) mandates that a deviation in excess of five percent must be supported by “a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.” § 61.30(l)(a); see also Whittingham v. Whittingham, 67 So. 3d 239, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, the court’s finding is insufficient. See Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); cf. Hodge, 754 So. 2d at 847. See generally Hall v. Hall, 994 So. 2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“[Djeviation…
-
M.M. v. J.H., 251 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…d support order for its failure to set forth adequate factual findings and attach a child support guidelines worksheet). Without these findings, we cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review of the child support awards. Whittingham v. Whittingham, 67 So. 3d 239, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing child support order due to the court's failure to include any findings regarding the parties' incomes because such failure precluded a determination as to whether the award was within the guidelines established in…
-
Harris v. Harris, 114 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…(l)(b), and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.”); Whittingham v. Whittingham, 67 So. 3d 239, 240 (Fla. 2D DCA 2010) (reversing final judgment where trial' court did not address health care coverage for child and noncovered dental, medical, and prescription medication expenses). In the present case, the final judgment mentions neither the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)