Guttler v. Guttler

798 So. 2d 888, 2001 WL 1359546
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 7, 2001
Docket4D01-248
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 798 So. 2d 888 (Guttler v. Guttler) 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
Guttler v. Guttler, 798 So. 2d 888, 2001 WL 1359546 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

798 So.2d 888 (2001)

Bruce GUTTLER, Appellant,
v.
Dona GUTTLER, Appellee.

No. 4D01-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 7, 2001.

Cynthia L. Greene of Law Offices of Cynthia L. Greene & Associates, P.A., Miami, and Law Offices of Feinberg & Maidenbaum, Hollywood, for appellant.

Dona Cohen Guttler, Weston, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in all respects but one.

The trial court found that under the statutory guidelines, total child support was $1,251 per month. The court failed to properly apply section 61.30(11)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides that the court "shall adjust any award of child support" when a shared parental arrangement provides that a child spends a "substantial amount of time with each parent." Id. (Emphasis supplied).

In this case, the child will spend 46% of his time with the father, an amount that meets the statutory definition of "substantial." See Arze v. Sadough-Arze, 789 *889 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that when a child spent 44% of his time with the husband it was "substantial" under the statute). We note that the 2001 amendment to section 61.30(11) defines a "substantial amount of time" as meaning "that the noncustodial parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year." Ch.2001-158, § 16, at 19, Laws of Fla.

On remand, the trial court shall apply the amended version of section 61.30, which took effect on July 1, 2001. Ch.2001-158, § 16, Laws of Fla.; see Arze, 789 So.2d at 1144-45 (pointing out that the 2001 amendments to section 61.30(11) were "remedial legislation that may be retroactively applied").

GUNTHER, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Buhler v. Buhler
913 So. 2d 767 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Harwood v. Li
909 So. 2d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Cheverie v. Cheverie
898 So. 2d 1028 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Migliore v. Harris
848 So. 2d 1250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Jensen v. Jensen
824 So. 2d 315 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
798 So. 2d 888, 2001 WL 1359546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guttler-v-guttler-fladistctapp-2001.