Hooper v. Hooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hooper v. Hooper

681 So. 2d 833, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490, 1996 WL 588685

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1996

DocketNo. 96-1759

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 833 (Hooper v. Hooper) 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

Hooper v. Hooper, 681 So. 2d 833, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490, 1996 WL 588685 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack E. Hooper appeals a nonfinal order increasing the amount of temporary child support which he is required to pay and argues that the trial court failed to consider and awarded temporary support in excess of the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1995). We have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order. See, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Although there may be evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision to increase Hooper’s child support obligation, we are compelled to reverse because the trial court’s order does not set forth specific findings as to the parties’ income, the basis for the modified support amount, or any justification for the departure from the guidelines. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also, Hardy v. Hardy, 659 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jack E. Hooper appeals a nonfinal order increasing the amount of temporary child support which he is required to pay and argues that the trial court failed to consider and awarded temporary support in excess of the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1995). We have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order. See, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Although there may be evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision to increase Hooper’s child support obligation, we are compelled to reverse because the trial court’s order does not set forth specific findings as to the parties’ income, the basis for the modified support amount, or any justification for the departure from the guidelines. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also, Hardy v. Hardy, 659 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 833, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11490, 1996 WL 588685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooper-v-hooper-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack