State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Stanley v. Tucker

661 So. 2d 385, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10651, 1995 WL 597435
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 1995
DocketNo. 95-979
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 385 (State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Stanley v. Tucker) 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
State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Stanley v. Tucker, 661 So. 2d 385, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10651, 1995 WL 597435 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order entered in response to a motion seeking an increase in appellee’s child support obligation. M-though the evidence established a presumptive monthly obligation of $265.35 pursuant to the child support guidelines ($190.35 more than appellee had previously been ordered to pay), the trial court increased appellee’s monthly obligation by only $50.00, to $125.00. This significant downward departure from the presumptive guidelines amount was based upon findings that appellee had “a dependent father with Alzheimer’s living at home” and had “remarried” and “ha[d] another family.” Assuming (without deciding) that either or both of those findings would be sufficient to sustain the action of the trial court were they supported by competent, substantial evidence, we are able to find no such evidence in the record. There is evidence that appellee’s father was disabled and living with appellee. However, there is no evidence that the father was financially dependent upon appellee. See § 61.30(ll)(c), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Similarly, while there is evidence that appellee was married, there is no evidence that he and his present wife had any children. See § 61.30(12), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994). Because there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s reasons for a downward departure from appel-lee’s presumptive monthly obligation pursuant to the child support guidelines, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order setting appellee’s monthly child support obligation at $265.35, retroactive to December 1,1994, the effective date established by the order on appeal.

[386]*386REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State, Department of Revenue v. Austin
712 So. 2d 470 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent
680 So. 2d 1119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 So. 2d 385, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10651, 1995 WL 597435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-ex-rel-stanley-v-tucker-fladistctapp-1995.