Glass v. Anderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glass v. Anderson

714 So. 2d 1039, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516, 1998 WL 241207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1213

StatusPublished

This text of 714 So. 2d 1039 (Glass v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glass v. Anderson, 714 So. 2d 1039, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516, 1998 WL 241207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Tamiko Glass, seeks review of the final order of the lower tribunal awarding child support in a paternity action. In compliance with the majority opinion of this court, sitting en banc, in Finley v. Scott, 687 So.2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the lower court ruled that because appellant offered no evidence “justifying” guidelines support and the appellee “did meet his burden in demonstrating that [guidelines support] exceeded the actual current needs of the minor child,” he would set support in a lesser amount, which was approximately thirty per cent of guidelines. Appellee, Nelison Anderson, who, like Dennis Scott is an NBA basketball payer, is similarly situated and the recent decision of the Florida supreme court reversing this court’s decision in Finley v. Scott is controlling.¹ We accordingly vacate the child support award and remand for reconsideration in light of Scott.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Tamiko Glass, seeks review of the final order of the lower tribunal awarding child support in a paternity action. In compliance with the majority opinion of this court, sitting en banc, in Finley v. Scott, 687 So.2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the lower court ruled that because appellant offered no evidence “justifying” guidelines support and the appellee “did meet his burden in demonstrating that [guidelines support] exceeded the actual current needs of the minor child,” he would set support in a lesser amount, which was approximately thirty per cent of guidelines. Appellee, Nelison Anderson, who, like Dennis Scott is an NBA basketball payer, is similarly situated and the recent decision of the Florida supreme court reversing this court’s decision in Finley v. Scott is controlling.¹ We accordingly vacate the child support award and remand for reconsideration in light of Scott.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 1039, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516, 1998 WL 241207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-anderson-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack