SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-1793 Lower Tribunal No. 2015-DR-012808-O _____________________________
CLARENCE GARWOOD,
Appellant, v.
JESSICA GARWOOD k/n/a JESSICA WYATT,
Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Michael Kraynick, Judge.
April 25, 2025
TRAVER, C.J.
Clarence Garwood (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s amended
second supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We have
jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). While our review of this matter is
impaired by a missing trial transcript, computation errors appear on the judgment’s
face. We reverse to correct these mathematical errors, but we otherwise affirm. See
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
(“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment
is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).
The parties married in 2012 and divorced in 2015. They have two children,
and the original judgment ordered Former Husband to make monthly child support
payments. In 2017, Jessica Garwood, n/k/a Jessica Wyatt (“Former Wife”), filed a
supplemental petition to modify the final judgment, alleging that Former Husband
was not exercising his timesharing. In 2018, following a trial, the trial court entered
a supplemental final judgment that increased Former Husband’s monthly child
support obligation.
In January 2020, Former Wife moved to enforce the supplemental final
judgment’s child support provisions. The trial court found that Former Husband
willfully violated the supplemental final judgment by not paying child support, and
it held him in contempt. It determined Former Husband’s child support arrearages
as of the end of May 2020 and imposed a new monthly repayment obligation. In
June 2020, Former Husband filed a supplemental petition to modify the
supplemental final judgment. He asked for increased timesharing and claimed a
lower net income. He thus sought to reduce his child support obligations. In
December 2022, the case went to trial.
The trial court later entered a comprehensive, fifty-page second supplemental
final judgment, containing detailed factual findings and legal conclusions. These
2 included Former Husband’s new child support obligations, retroactively calculated
to the filing date of his supplemental petition,1 as well as the total amount of child
support arrears he owed since the parties’ divorce. To determine Former Husband’s
retroactive child support obligations, the trial court assessed four different time
periods during which the parties’ incomes changed. These periods spanned June
2020 through December 2022—the two and a half years from the date Former
Husband filed his supplemental petition through trial.
In calculating Former Husband’s retroactive child support obligations, the
trial court properly used the parties’ net monthly incomes for the four periods at issue
and correctly applied the appropriate statutory formula to obtain Former Husband’s
minimum support obligation. See § 61.30(6)–(10), Fla. Stat. (2022).2 But the trial
court made computation errors affecting each period. For the first two periods, the
trial court took an extra step that the law does not permit. It subtracted Former
1 This is how trial courts typically exercise their discretion to determine the starting date for retroactive support payments, although section 61.30(11)(c) provides an exception. See Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356, 358–59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also McArthur v. McArthur, 106 So. 2d 73, 76 (Fla. 1958) (“We see no inequity to the husband in making the [support payment] increase effective as of the date of filing of the petition in view of the determination by the chancellor, which is amply supported by the record . . . .”). 2 The trial court did not adjust Former Husband’s minimum obligation further because it did not award him a “substantial amount of time” with his children. See § 61.30(11)(b)8.
3 Husband’s minimum child support obligation from Former Wife’s and identified the
resulting difference as Former Husband’s required monthly child support payment.
It then multiplied that result by the months at issue to reach Former Husband’s
retroactive support obligations for the first two periods. Because Former Wife
earned substantially more per month in net income than Former Husband during the
first two periods, this error resulted in Former Husband owing as much or more in
child support per month than his net monthly income. 3 For the last two periods, the
trial court did not take this extra step and thus calculated Former Husband’s monthly
support obligation correctly. But when it multiplied those sums by the relevant
months, it miscalculated, so the final number was either too high or too low.
In calculating Former Husband’s total child support arrearages, the trial court
needed to determine what Former Husband owed before he filed his supplemental
petition in June 2020. But the trial court did not use its May 2020 arrearages
determination, which it calculated the month before this occurred, as a starting point.
Instead, it relied on a trial clerk’s arrearages affidavit from January 2022. The trial
3 For example, in the June 2020 to December 2020 period, the trial court used the proper statutory procedure to conclude that Former Husband’s minimum child support obligation was $344.43, and Former Wife’s minimum support obligation was $1,665.57. But instead of imposing the proper monthly support obligation of $344.43, the trial court ordered Former Husband to pay $1,321.14 per month (the difference between $1,665.57 and $344.43) at a time when his net income was $1,329.76.
4 court added the amount in that affidavit to Former Husband’s miscalculated
retroactive child support obligations from June 2020 to December 2022. This
compounded the trial court’s first error by double counting child support from June
2020, when Former Husband filed his supplemental petition, to January 2022, the
date of the trial clerk’s arrearages affidavit. Moreover, the trial clerk’s arrearages
affidavit set Former Husband’s monthly child support obligation at the higher
amount set in the 2018 supplemental final judgment, and not the lower monthly
amounts now awarded in the second supplemental final judgment.
Former Husband moved for rehearing, challenging the trial court’s arrearages
calculations. The trial court denied the motion, but it corrected some scrivener’s
errors and issued the amended second supplemental final judgment, from which
Former Husband appeals.
“A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court,
subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test. However, whether a
trial court’s mathematical computations are correct is a question of law which is
reviewed de novo.” Delosreyes v. Delosreyes, 392 So. 3d 128, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA
2024) (quoting King v. King, 320 So. 3d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal
citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-1793 Lower Tribunal No. 2015-DR-012808-O _____________________________
CLARENCE GARWOOD,
Appellant, v.
JESSICA GARWOOD k/n/a JESSICA WYATT,
Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Michael Kraynick, Judge.
April 25, 2025
TRAVER, C.J.
Clarence Garwood (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s amended
second supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We have
jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). While our review of this matter is
impaired by a missing trial transcript, computation errors appear on the judgment’s
face. We reverse to correct these mathematical errors, but we otherwise affirm. See
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
(“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment
is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).
The parties married in 2012 and divorced in 2015. They have two children,
and the original judgment ordered Former Husband to make monthly child support
payments. In 2017, Jessica Garwood, n/k/a Jessica Wyatt (“Former Wife”), filed a
supplemental petition to modify the final judgment, alleging that Former Husband
was not exercising his timesharing. In 2018, following a trial, the trial court entered
a supplemental final judgment that increased Former Husband’s monthly child
support obligation.
In January 2020, Former Wife moved to enforce the supplemental final
judgment’s child support provisions. The trial court found that Former Husband
willfully violated the supplemental final judgment by not paying child support, and
it held him in contempt. It determined Former Husband’s child support arrearages
as of the end of May 2020 and imposed a new monthly repayment obligation. In
June 2020, Former Husband filed a supplemental petition to modify the
supplemental final judgment. He asked for increased timesharing and claimed a
lower net income. He thus sought to reduce his child support obligations. In
December 2022, the case went to trial.
The trial court later entered a comprehensive, fifty-page second supplemental
final judgment, containing detailed factual findings and legal conclusions. These
2 included Former Husband’s new child support obligations, retroactively calculated
to the filing date of his supplemental petition,1 as well as the total amount of child
support arrears he owed since the parties’ divorce. To determine Former Husband’s
retroactive child support obligations, the trial court assessed four different time
periods during which the parties’ incomes changed. These periods spanned June
2020 through December 2022—the two and a half years from the date Former
Husband filed his supplemental petition through trial.
In calculating Former Husband’s retroactive child support obligations, the
trial court properly used the parties’ net monthly incomes for the four periods at issue
and correctly applied the appropriate statutory formula to obtain Former Husband’s
minimum support obligation. See § 61.30(6)–(10), Fla. Stat. (2022).2 But the trial
court made computation errors affecting each period. For the first two periods, the
trial court took an extra step that the law does not permit. It subtracted Former
1 This is how trial courts typically exercise their discretion to determine the starting date for retroactive support payments, although section 61.30(11)(c) provides an exception. See Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356, 358–59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also McArthur v. McArthur, 106 So. 2d 73, 76 (Fla. 1958) (“We see no inequity to the husband in making the [support payment] increase effective as of the date of filing of the petition in view of the determination by the chancellor, which is amply supported by the record . . . .”). 2 The trial court did not adjust Former Husband’s minimum obligation further because it did not award him a “substantial amount of time” with his children. See § 61.30(11)(b)8.
3 Husband’s minimum child support obligation from Former Wife’s and identified the
resulting difference as Former Husband’s required monthly child support payment.
It then multiplied that result by the months at issue to reach Former Husband’s
retroactive support obligations for the first two periods. Because Former Wife
earned substantially more per month in net income than Former Husband during the
first two periods, this error resulted in Former Husband owing as much or more in
child support per month than his net monthly income. 3 For the last two periods, the
trial court did not take this extra step and thus calculated Former Husband’s monthly
support obligation correctly. But when it multiplied those sums by the relevant
months, it miscalculated, so the final number was either too high or too low.
In calculating Former Husband’s total child support arrearages, the trial court
needed to determine what Former Husband owed before he filed his supplemental
petition in June 2020. But the trial court did not use its May 2020 arrearages
determination, which it calculated the month before this occurred, as a starting point.
Instead, it relied on a trial clerk’s arrearages affidavit from January 2022. The trial
3 For example, in the June 2020 to December 2020 period, the trial court used the proper statutory procedure to conclude that Former Husband’s minimum child support obligation was $344.43, and Former Wife’s minimum support obligation was $1,665.57. But instead of imposing the proper monthly support obligation of $344.43, the trial court ordered Former Husband to pay $1,321.14 per month (the difference between $1,665.57 and $344.43) at a time when his net income was $1,329.76.
4 court added the amount in that affidavit to Former Husband’s miscalculated
retroactive child support obligations from June 2020 to December 2022. This
compounded the trial court’s first error by double counting child support from June
2020, when Former Husband filed his supplemental petition, to January 2022, the
date of the trial clerk’s arrearages affidavit. Moreover, the trial clerk’s arrearages
affidavit set Former Husband’s monthly child support obligation at the higher
amount set in the 2018 supplemental final judgment, and not the lower monthly
amounts now awarded in the second supplemental final judgment.
Former Husband moved for rehearing, challenging the trial court’s arrearages
calculations. The trial court denied the motion, but it corrected some scrivener’s
errors and issued the amended second supplemental final judgment, from which
Former Husband appeals.
“A child support determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court,
subject to the statutory guidelines and the reasonableness test. However, whether a
trial court’s mathematical computations are correct is a question of law which is
reviewed de novo.” Delosreyes v. Delosreyes, 392 So. 3d 128, 130 (Fla. 4th DCA
2024) (quoting King v. King, 320 So. 3d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal
citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)).
Former Wife does not challenge Former Husband’s arguments over the trial
court’s mathematical errors; she just insists that he has not preserved these issues for
5 our review. This is incorrect. Even though we lack a trial transcript, we may address
the computational errors because they appear on the amended second supplemental
final judgment’s face. See Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. True Builders, 398 So. 3d
1120, 1123 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152). While a
party challenging a trial court’s failure to make a required factual finding in a final
judgment must file a motion for rehearing to preserve the matter for appellate review,
we do not face this situation. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530(a). Rather, we address
incorrect mathematical computations resulting in facial errors. And Former
Husband challenged the trial court’s arrearages calculations in his motion for
rehearing.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to correct Former Husband’s
retroactive child support obligations from June 2020 to December 2022, using the
formula delineated in section 61.30. We also remand for the trial court to correct
Former Husband’s total child support arrearages. An evidentiary hearing is
unnecessary. We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with
instructions.
STARGEL and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
6 Megan L. Garcia, of Megan L. Garcia Law, PLLC, Windermere, for Appellant.
Melisa Medina, of Medina & Ritter, PLLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED