DEREK KNUDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MONIQUE DROBNAK, 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 modification of child support order, challenging the trial court's calculation of arrearages. The court reverses in part because the trial court improperly included childcare costs in arrearages for a period when the mother did not actually incur those costs.
The trial court erred by including childcare expenses in the arrearages that were not actually incurred by the mother. The case is remanded for the trial court to recalculate arrearages by subtracting childcare expenses for the months when the mother did not incur them.
[1] Child support arrearages cannot include childcare costs that were not actually incurred.
[2] A trial court errs by including childcare expenses in arrearages when the record shows no such expenses were incurred during the relevant period.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It was error for the trial court to include in the arrearages childcare expenses that were not incurred by the mother.”
States the core legal error that warrants reversal on the arrearages calculation issue.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the parties' marriage was dissolved, the father petitioned to modify his child support obligation due to reduced income. The mother testified sh…
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
Derek Knudson (“father”) appeals from an order modifying child support. He raises multiple issues on appeal, only one of which warrants reversal. The father asserts that the trial court’s calculation of arrearages erroneously included childcare costs not actually incurred by Monique Drobnak (“mother”). Because the record confirms the father’s contention, we reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate the arrearages.
Some years after the parties’ marriage was dissolved, the father petitioned for a modification of his child support obligation based on a reduction in his income. During the hearing on the father’s petition, the mother testified that she was unemployed for a six-month period ending in December 2012. Additionally, an exhibit the mother submitted at trial reflected that because she was not working outside of the home, she incurred no child care costs between June 2012 and November 2012.
The court found a substantial change in circumstances and reduced the father’s child support obligation retroactive to April 2012. The mother’s childcare expenses were included in the court’s calculation of the modified child support obligation. However, the order on appeal contains no indication that the father’s ar-rearages were credited for the period of *115time the mother did not actually incur childcare expenses. It was error for the trial court to include in the arrearages childcare expenses that were not incurred by the mother. See § 61.30(7), Fla. Stat. (2011) (requiring, for certain purposes, “incurred” childcare costs to be added to the basic obligation in calculating child support); G.S.P. v. KB., 30 So.3d 667, 669-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (remanding to trial court to adjust child support obligation in modification order where evidence reflected that child support amount included childcare costs that were not incurred after a specified date); Anderko v. Nicholson, 997 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (finding error in award of childcare costs in the absence of evidence they were incurred).
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to recalculate the arrearages, subtracting childcare expenses for the months the mother did not incur them. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in 'part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fallon Johnson v. Jacorey Johnson (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- G.S.P. v. K.B., 30 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Anderko v. Nicholson, 997 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)