Street v. Street

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Street v. Street

198 So. 3d 1160, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13488, 2016 WL 4708567

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-5452

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 1160 (Street v. Street) 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

Street v. Street, 198 So. 3d 1160, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13488, 2016 WL 4708567 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former husband raises four issues in this appeal from a final order denying his supplemental petition to modify the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm Issues I and II without comment. In Issue III, the former husband argues, and the former wife concedes, that the final order erroneously reflected a time sharing split of 36%-64% when the parties’ time sharing split was actually 40%-60%. We reverse the portions of the final order reflecting this scrivener’s error and remand for recalculation of the former husband’s child support payment to reflect the appropriate time sharing split.

On remand, the trial court should also reconsider the attorney fee award below as the record on appeal does not demonstrate that factors beyond the former husband’s ability to pay were considered. See § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing for fees upon consideration of the financial resources of both parties); Glasgow v. Wolfe, 873 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (remanding for the trial court to make specific factual findings to support and explain its ruling on a motion for attorney’s fees under section 61.16).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former husband raises four issues in this appeal from a final order denying his supplemental petition to modify the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm Issues I and II without comment. In Issue III, the former husband argues, and the former wife concedes, that the final order erroneously reflected a time sharing split of 36%-64% when the parties’ time sharing split was actually 40%-60%. We reverse the portions of the final order reflecting this scrivener’s error and remand for recalculation of the former husband’s child support payment to reflect the appropriate time sharing split.

On remand, the trial court should also reconsider the attorney fee award below as the record on appeal does not demonstrate that factors beyond the former husband’s ability to pay were considered. See § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing for fees upon consideration of the financial resources of both parties); Glasgow v. Wolfe, 873 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (remanding for the trial court to make specific factual findings to support and explain its ruling on a motion for attorney’s fees under section 61.16).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 1160, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13488, 2016 WL 4708567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-street-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack