Sarah Rebecca Strawitch v. Frederick Strawitch, III

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sarah Rebecca Strawitch v. Frederick Strawitch, III

214 So. 3d 802, 2017 WL 1438508, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-3230

StatusPublished

This text of 214 So. 3d 802 (Sarah Rebecca Strawitch v. Frederick Strawitch, III) 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

Sarah Rebecca Strawitch v. Frederick Strawitch, III, 214 So. 3d 802, 2017 WL 1438508, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5663 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sarah and Frederick Strawitch, once husband and wife, ended their marriage in 2007. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which detailed their respective obligations regarding their minor *803 child. Under the agreement, the husband was to provide the child’s health insurance, pay child support of some $800 per month, and pay for medical expenses not covered by insurance.

Five years later, the husband petitioned for a modification. According to the petition, the husband had become involuntarily unemployed. Subsequently, the husband began receiving Social Security disability income. The trial court found that there was a substantial change in circumstances and granted the modification. The trial court reduced the husband’s child support obligations retroactively, ordered, repayment of overpayments, and provided that the child’s uncovered medical expenses would be allocated based on the parties’ “respective percentages of income.” Although the wife does not dispute the trial court’s determination of a substantial change in circumstances, she challenges certain aspects of the modification order.

We. affirm in all respects but one. In determining the amount of the husband’s overpayment, the trial court accepted the figures the husband’s counsel provided, without any evidence of how much the husband actually paid. Absent agreement of the parties, the trial court needed an evidentiary basis for the amount of the overpayment. See Cheek v. Hesik, 73 So.3d 340, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Although a trial court is free to reject even unrebutted testimony, there must be some evidentiary basis for its findings.”). We therefore reverse and remand for- additional proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sarah and Frederick Strawitch, once husband and wife, ended their marriage in 2007. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which detailed their respective obligations regarding their minor *803 child. Under the agreement, the husband was to provide the child’s health insurance, pay child support of some $800 per month, and pay for medical expenses not covered by insurance.

Five years later, the husband petitioned for a modification. According to the petition, the husband had become involuntarily unemployed. Subsequently, the husband began receiving Social Security disability income. The trial court found that there was a substantial change in circumstances and granted the modification. The trial court reduced the husband’s child support obligations retroactively, ordered, repayment of overpayments, and provided that the child’s uncovered medical expenses would be allocated based on the parties’ “respective percentages of income.” Although the wife does not dispute the trial court’s determination of a substantial change in circumstances, she challenges certain aspects of the modification order.

We. affirm in all respects but one. In determining the amount of the husband’s overpayment, the trial court accepted the figures the husband’s counsel provided, without any evidence of how much the husband actually paid. Absent agreement of the parties, the trial court needed an evidentiary basis for the amount of the overpayment. See Cheek v. Hesik, 73 So.3d 340, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Although a trial court is free to reject even unrebutted testimony, there must be some evidentiary basis for its findings.”). We therefore reverse and remand for- additional proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 3d 802, 2017 WL 1438508, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarah-rebecca-strawitch-v-frederick-strawitch-iii-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack