DANIEL MARK HOLMES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
TONNA KAY HOLMES, 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 the trial court erred in computing the husband's income, requiring a reduction and recalculation of child support. The issue of attorneys' fees was not ripe for appeal.
The Former Husband appealed an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising several issues. Both parties agreed the trial court erred in…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Daniel Mark Holmes, Jr. (the Former Husband), raises several claims of trial court error. After careful consideration of the evidentiary record and the trial court’s credibility determinations, we affirm on all issues save one.
The Former Husband contends, and the Former Wife, Tonna Kay Holmes, agrees, that the trial court erred in computing the Former Husband’s monthly income. The parties agree that the income attributed to the Former Husband was excessive by $267 per month. Accordingly, we reverse this cause and remand it for the trial court to reduce the income attributed to the Former Husband by $267 per month. Thereafter, the trial court is directed to recompute the amount due as child support and to make the appropriate retroactive computations.
We note that the Former Husband also challenges the determination by the trial court that the Former Wife is entitled to *746attorneys’ fees. We decline to reach that issue as the trial court has not yet made a monetary award. Accordingly, the issue is not ripe for appeal. See Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…fees, the record is devoid of an actual award or a determination of the amount of fees. Therefore, the attorney’s fee issue is not ripe for this Court’s review, and we decline to address Former Husband’s argument at this time. See Holmes v. Holmes, 100 So. 3d 745, 745-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). While we are compelled to reverse portions of the final judgment, we note that many of the issues resulted from Former Husband’s lack of veracity and the parties’ failure to provide the court with the information necessa…
-
Bryant Woelk v. Woelk, 251 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…this issue is not ripe for appeal. See Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (declining to address entitlement to attorney's fees where there was no actual award or determination of amount of fees (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 100 So. 3d 745, 745-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ) ).…
-
Woelk v. Woelk (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ount of alimony awarded. We affirm in all other respects. AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions. BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. actual award or determination of amount of fees (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 100 So. 3d 745, 745–46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012))).…
Authorities Cited
- Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)