CHRISTOPHER ORIZONDO, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL L. ORIZONDO, 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.
Christopher Orizondo appeals a final divorce judgment, challenging the trial court's time-sharing decision based on the children's preferences, the calculation of child support arrearage payments, the allocation of medical expenses, and the treatment of marital liabilities. The appellate court finds that the trial court committed reversible error by abdicating its responsibility to determine time-sharing based on the children's desires alone, and also finds errors in the arrearage calculation and medical expense allocation.
The trial court's abdication of its time-sharing responsibility to the children's desires constitutes reversible error. The trial court misinterpreted the former husband's ten percent suggestion, and the arrearage payment determination must be reconsidered on remand, taking into account the children's ages. The unequal allocation of uncovered medical expenses was error, and on remand the former husband shall be responsible for 50% of such expenses. The court must allocate liabilities and provide factual findings supporting the allocation.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by abdicating its decision-making authority regarding time-sharing to the desires of minor children.
[2] A trial court must reconsider child support arrearage payments when the ordered payment amount exceeds the monthly child support obligation and the payor's financial affi…
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“the trial court's admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error”
Establishes that deferring time-sharing decisions solely to children's preferences violates judicial responsibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher and Cheryl Orizondo were divorcing with two daughters, one already eighteen and the other turning eighteen in less than six months. The tr…
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 Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
Christopher Orizondo (Former Husband) appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Cheryl Orizondo (Former Wife). The parties had two daughters born of the marriage: one is already eighteen, and the other will be turning eighteen in less than six months. The parties agreed to allow the trial judge to meet with the daughters and consider their desires with regard to time-sharing. No ruling on time-sharing was going to repair the strained relationship between Former Husband and his daughters. However, the trial court’s admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error. See Perez v. Perez, 767 So.2d 513, 518-19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
We also find that other portions of the final judgment must be reversed. The trial court set child support at $791 per month, pursuant to the child support guidelines, and determined the arrearage to be $8,756. Neither party disputed these amounts. When the trial court asked for a suggested amount for payment of the arrearage, Former Wife recommended $500 per month and Former Husband suggested ten percent. Apparently, the trial court interpreted Former Husband’s suggestion to mean ten percent of the total arrearage: $875.60 per month. However, Former Husband, via his counsel, intended to suggest ten percent of the monthly obligation. Under the trial court’s interpretation, the amount required to be paid for the arrearage was greater than the monthly child support obligation. A review of Former Husband’s financial affidavit reflects an inability to meet both his own expenses and the combined child support award. We remand for the trial *153court to reconsider the arrearage payments. The court may take into consideration the age of the children in establishing the monthly arrearage payment.1
Additionally, as conceded by Former Wife, the unequal allocation of uncovered reasonable and necessary medical expenses constituted error. The parties’ incomes were substantially equal. On remand, Former Husband shall be responsible for fifty percent of such expenses.
Lastly, the parties listed their various liabilities and noted that none were being paid. On remand, despite the nonpayment, the final judgment should allocate the liabilities and include factual findings to support the allocation. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2018).
The remaining issues raised on appeal were either not preserved or lack merit.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
EVANDER, COHEN, JJ„ and HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loebs v. Loebs, 185 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…mined jointly.”). Because we agree that this provision improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the minor children, we reverse this portion of the order1 and remand with directions to strike the provision. Cf. Orizondo v. Orizondo, 146 So. 3d 151, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[T]he trial court’s admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error.”); Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“The law does not ... gratify the wishes- of childre…
Authorities Cited
- Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Elkins v. Bosch, 433 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)