Howard Elias v. Cindy Elias

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howard Elias v. Cindy Elias

168 So. 3d 301, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9970, 2015 WL 4002203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket4D14-1854

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 So. 3d 301 (Howard Elias v. Cindy Elias) 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

Howard Elias v. Cindy Elias, 168 So. 3d 301, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9970, 2015 WL 4002203 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Howard Elias, the husband, appeals a non-final order on temporary child support in his pending dissolution of marriage proceeding. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a. We reverse.

In determining that neither party needed to pay child support to the other, the trial court concluded that the wife’s annual income of over $1 million allowed her to provide for most of the children’s needs by direct payments to vendors and providers, as she volunteered to do. The court treated any expenditures on the parties’ three minor children made by the husband, who enjoys fifty-percent time-sharing, as largely incidental. Over his objection, the trial court declined to apply the child support guidelines contained in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2014);. This was error.

The guidelines are the starting point for determining temporary child support, just as they are for final child support orders. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“The child support guideline amount as determined by this section presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support. This requirement applies to any living arrangement, whether temporary or permanent.”); Migliore v. Migliore, 792 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hauser v. Hauser, 778 So.2d 309, 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Burkhart v. *302 Burkhart, 620 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

After calculating a guideline amount based on each parent’s net monthly income and the children’s need for support, the trial court may deviate from the guideline amount based on a variety of factors. § 61.30(l)(a), (11), Fla. Stat. (2014). But child support pursuant to the guidelines must be determined before the trial court deviates. See generally Finley v. Scott, 707 So.2d 1112, 1117 (Fla.1998); Crouch v. Crouch, 898 So.2d 177, 180-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

On remand we direct the trial court to follow the statutory procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Howard Elias, the husband, appeals a non-final order on temporary child support in his pending dissolution of marriage proceeding. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a. We reverse.

In determining that neither party needed to pay child support to the other, the trial court concluded that the wife’s annual income of over $1 million allowed her to provide for most of the children’s needs by direct payments to vendors and providers, as she volunteered to do. The court treated any expenditures on the parties’ three minor children made by the husband, who enjoys fifty-percent time-sharing, as largely incidental. Over his objection, the trial court declined to apply the child support guidelines contained in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2014);. This was error.

The guidelines are the starting point for determining temporary child support, just as they are for final child support orders. § 61.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“The child support guideline amount as determined by this section presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support. This requirement applies to any living arrangement, whether temporary or permanent.”); Migliore v. Migliore, 792 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Hauser v. Hauser, 778 So.2d 309, 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Burkhart v. *302 Burkhart, 620 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

After calculating a guideline amount based on each parent’s net monthly income and the children’s need for support, the trial court may deviate from the guideline amount based on a variety of factors. § 61.30(l)(a), (11), Fla. Stat. (2014). But child support pursuant to the guidelines must be determined before the trial court deviates. See generally Finley v. Scott, 707 So.2d 1112, 1117 (Fla.1998); Crouch v. Crouch, 898 So.2d 177, 180-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

On remand we direct the trial court to follow the statutory procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 3d 301, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9970, 2015 WL 4002203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-elias-v-cindy-elias-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack