Published on: | by

| Nov 20, 2011 | Child Support

In order for the substantial time-sharing adjustment to child support to be effective, there must be a court ordered parenting plan in effect.

“Here, the statutes’ plain meaning evidences the Legislature’s intent to require deviations from the child support guidelines only where a parent shares at least 20% of the overnight stays pursuant to a court authorized parenting plan. See §§ 61.046(14), 61.30(11), Fla. Stat. In the underlying case no such plan existed, and thus, deviation was not authorized pursuant to section 61.30(11)(b).” Dep’t of Revenue o/b/o Alanna H. Sherman v. Daly 

Published on: | by

In awarding alimony, a trial court must make findings of fact for each factor, even if alimony is denied. “Here, the court simply denied the Former Wife’s request for alimony because the Former Husband was going to make an equalizing payment and this was a short-term marriage. However, the trial court did not address all of the appropriate factors required by the 2009 statute.” Witt v. Witt. 

Published on: | by

Statute of Limitations for Enforcement of Alimony & Child Support – in Florida No statute of limitations applies to enforcement of alimony or child support obligations; although laches can apply. “Florida does not have a limitations period for I enforcement of alimony or child-support orders, and thus Florida’s unlimited period applies. Notwithstanding the absence of a limitations period, the former wife’s action for enforcement is equitable in nature and thus may be limited by the doctrine of laches. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Brown v. Steinle, 837 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).” Jackmore v. Jackmore

Published on: | by

The remedies employed by the trial court should be viewed as a whole to determine whether they accomplish equity between the parties. “A trial court has broad discretion in determining which remedy to apply to accomplish equity between the parties in a dissolution proceeding. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980). Such remedies include lump sum alimony, permanent periodic alimony, rehabilitative alimony, child support, special equity in property and the award of exclusive possession of property. Id. at 1202. In reviewing an order of dissolution, the remedies employed by the judge to accomplish equity between the parties should be reviewed as a whole since they are ‘interrelated’ and ‘part of one overall scheme.’ Id.” Sellers v. Sellers

Published on: | by

Trial Court has jurisdiction over a petition for modification during the pendency of an appeal. “Both the Third and Fourth Districts have held that the trial court has jurisdiction over a petition for prospective downward modification of alimony and/or child support even while the appeal of an initial award of alimony and child support is pending because “‘[t]he granting of modification relief prospectively would have no effect on the order being appealed.’” Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Merian v. Merhige, 690 So. 2d 678, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ) (emphasis added).” Cooper v. Cooper

Published on: | by

Once a party is ordered to make an equitable distribution of funds, even if the value of those funds is diminished by market conditions, the dollar amount that is required to be distributed will not be diminished. “Even if Former Wife’s half of the funds diminished due to market conditions, she was still required to pay Former Husband one-half of the investments as of November 2007. If she was unable to pay that one-half from her portion of the funds, she was to use other funds to ensure he still received the same amount he was owed years ago.” Shinitzky v. Shinitzky

Published on: | by

(ix) An award of rehabilitative alimony must provide an end date for the payments. “Although the final judgment awards the Former Wife $3500 a month as rehabilitative alimony and states that the purpose was for the Former Wife to complete her education, the trial court did not provide an end date for the payments. The Former Husband argues that such an open-ended award is erroneous, and we agree. Draulans v. Draulans 

Published on: | by

A finding of criminal contempt of court must be based upon a finding that a party has the present ability to pay. [T]he court’s finding that Mr. Keeler had the present ability to pay was ‘based upon his history of obtaining funds when needed.’ In Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court stated: ‘If incarceration is deemed appropriate, the court must make a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order…From the trial court’s order, it seems the judge focused on the past, not the present ability to pay. We therefore vacate the contempt but otherwise affirm.” Keeler v. Keeler,

Published on: | by

If the obligor fails to demonstrate his or her income during the retroactive period, the Court shall apply the current child support guidelines to calculate retroactive child support payments. “In addition, the ALJ erred in using Finch’s current monthly income to compute the retroactive support obligation. The use of current income is permissible when the obligor fails to demonstrate his or her actual income during the retroactive period. See § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011) (providing that the ‘[f]ailure of the obligor to… demon­strate [his or her actual income] shall result in the court using the obligor’s income at the time of the hearing in computing child support for the retroactive period’).” Finch v. Dep’t of Revenue o/b/o John-Jules