Warren v. Warren

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Warren v. Warren

84 So. 3d 461, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5555, 2012 WL 1193191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 2012

DocketNo. 2D11-2180

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 So. 3d 461 (Warren v. Warren) 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

Warren v. Warren, 84 So. 3d 461, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5555, 2012 WL 1193191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Sylvester Warren, Jr., the Former Husband, challenges the order setting child support, the order on rule to show cause, the order establishing parenting plan, the order granting motion for clarification and/or rehearing, and the order denying Former Husband’s motion for rehearing and/or new trial. We affirm the orders as they relate to the trial court’s setting of a time-sharing schedule as part of the modification of the custody arrangement without further comment. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order setting child support which made findings related to income and expenses that both parties concede were based on evidence not before the court. This concession is supported by the statement of facts prepared and submitted to this court in lieu of transcripts in the record on appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Therefore we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of modification of child support because competent substantial evidence supporting the award does not exist in the record before this court. See generally G.S.P. v. K.B., 30 So.3d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN, C.J. and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Sylvester Warren, Jr., the Former Husband, challenges the order setting child support, the order on rule to show cause, the order establishing parenting plan, the order granting motion for clarification and/or rehearing, and the order denying Former Husband’s motion for rehearing and/or new trial. We affirm the orders as they relate to the trial court’s setting of a time-sharing schedule as part of the modification of the custody arrangement without further comment. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order setting child support which made findings related to income and expenses that both parties concede were based on evidence not before the court. This concession is supported by the statement of facts prepared and submitted to this court in lieu of transcripts in the record on appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). Therefore we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the issue of modification of child support because competent substantial evidence supporting the award does not exist in the record before this court. See generally G.S.P. v. K.B., 30 So.3d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN, C.J. and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 3d 461, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5555, 2012 WL 1193191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-warren-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack