ANDREW L. TERKEURST, APPELLANT,
v.
MONICA D. TERKEURST, 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.
Andrew Terkeurst appealed the denial of his motion for reconsideration of a child support order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by calculating support as if both children resided with his ex-wife when one child actually resided with him under an agreed parenting plan. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, finding the trial court erred by requiring him to pay 74% of total support to his ex-wife despite having equal nighttime parenting of the two children.
The trial court abused its discretion by improperly treating both children as residing primarily with the mother despite the agreed modification to the parenting plan. Because each parent had approximately equal nights per year with the children, the father should have retained 50% of the total support obligation based on his primary residency of one child, rather than owing 74% of the total to the mother.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in calculating child support when it fails to account for a modified timesharing agreement where children reside primarily with differ…
[2] Child support calculations must reflect the actual residency arrangements of children as established by a parenting plan or court order.
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 improperly treated both children as residing primarily with Former Wife despite the modification contained in the April 17, 2012 consent final judgment.”
Identifies the core error: the trial court failed to account for the agreed modification to the parenting plan in calculating support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew and Monica Terkeurst divorced in 2003 and had two children. Initially both children resided with Monica. In 2011, the parties agreed to modify …
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
Andrew Terkeurst (“Former Husband”) appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of a child support order, which provides monthly support for his two children to Monica Terkeurst (“Former Wife”). Former Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion when it calculated the support award because one of the two children resides with him.1 We agree with Former Husband and reverse *759and remand for the trial court to recalculate the support award.2
Former Husband and Former Wife divorced in 2003. The couple had two children, G.T. and C.T., and initially, both resided primarily with Former Wife. In 2011, Former Husband and Former Wife agreed G.T. would reside primarily with Former Husband while C.T. would continue to reside with Former Wife. The parties consented to a modified timesharing and parenting plan, which was memorialized on April 17, 2012, in a consent final judgment. Under the modified timeshar-ing schedule, G.T. resided primarily with Former Husband and visited Former Wife every other weekend. C.T. resided primarily with Former Wife and visited Former Husband every other weekend. Each child would spend six weeks over the summer with the parent that the child did not primarily reside with during the school year. In effect, the parents averaged equal nights per year overall.
Pursuant to the consent judgment, the parties were to determine a modification in support. The parties were unable to agree upon a modification in support following the revision to the timesharing. On December 12, 2012, Former Wife filed a motion to determine child support, which resulted in a March 18, 2013 support order. The trial court relied on Former Wife’s suggested worksheet, which provided the total monthly support necessary for both children as $1,463.00. The trial court improperly treated both children as residing primarily with Former Wife despite the modification contained in the April 17, 2012 consent final judgment. Based upon the parents’ respective incomes, the trial court set Former Husband’s obligation at $1,088.79 and Former Wife’s obligation at $374.21. Stated differently, the percentage amount of support allocated was 74% from Former Husband and 26% from Former Wife. The trial court determined Former Husband owed Former Wife $1,088.79 per month for “two minor children.” The trial court also awarded retroactive support to Former Wife of $10,887.90 for the previous ten months, dating back to June 1, 2012.
We review child support awards for an abuse of discretion. Karimi v. Karimi, 867 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980)). The parenting plan, which the consent judgment incorporated, provides that G.T.’s arrangement for primary residency with Former Husband mirrors C.T.’s arrangement for primary residence with Former Wife. Thus, if each parent has on average an equal number of- nights, the trial court erred by requiring Former Husband to pay all of his 74% share of the support award to Former Wife. If the nights per year with each parent were equal, Former Husband should have retained 50% of the $1463 total support and, based upon the income disparity, paid 24%, or $357.27, to Former Wife. This error requires a recalculation of the retroactive support award Former Husband owes Former Wife.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate the ongoing support *760award and retroactive support based on the number of nights G.T. and C.T. reside with each parent.
REVERSED and REMANDED with.instructions.
COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. Reese J. Henderson, 162 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…was modified in 2010 to require that all child support orders contain the above-specified termination language. Ch. 2010-199, Laws of Fla. . The same judge presided over the trial court in a recent appeal to this court. See Terkeurst v. Terkeurst, 149 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). In Terkeurst, the trial court committed a similar error by wholly adopting one party’s suggested calculation and by failing to credit one parent with custody of a child, despite clear indications in the record that the parent ex…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Milan Todorovic v. Arctic AIR OF Cent. Fla. & Am. All-Risk Administrators, 867 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Lauderdale Marine Ctr., Ltd. v. MYD Marine Distribs., Inc., 31 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)