PEDRILANDA DORVILIEN
v.
JEFFREY VERTY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pedrilanda Dorvilien appealed a trial court's final judgment regarding parental responsibility and child support, challenging the child support calculation. The appellate court affirmed the substantive child support award as properly calculated but remanded the case to require the trial court to attach the mandatory child support guidelines worksheet to the final order.
The court affirmed the child support calculation as properly supported by the trial court's findings regarding the parties' incomes, but remanded the case because the failure to attach the mandatory child support guidelines worksheet to the final order constitutes reversible error requiring correction regardless of whether the underlying calculation is correct.
[1] A trial court's calculation of child support is proper when based on appropriate findings and consideration of the parties' monthly incomes.
[2] A minor error in child support calculations that does not significantly alter the final award may not warrant remand.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because the requirement for filing a child support guidelines worksheet is mandatory, reversal is required even if the omission is due to the parties' failure”
Citation to Department of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J., establishing that the worksheet requirement is mandatory and reversal is required for omission.
The Mother appealed the trial court's final judgment of parental responsibility and child support. The trial court made findings regarding the parties…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Guidelines Worksheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pedrilanda Dorvilien (“the Mother”) appeals the trial court’s final judgment of parental responsibility and child support.
We affirm on all issues but remand for correction of the trial court’s final order. The Mother argues the trial court erred in its calculation of child support; however, the trial court made appropriate findings on the record and properly considered the parties’ monthly incomes to calculate those support payments. See Clements v. Clements, 254 So. 3d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
Even if the trial court made a minor error in its calculations, it would not have significantly altered the final child support awards. See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 717 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (affirming child support obligation that exceeded support guidelines by a “negligible amount . . . does not warrant remand for justification, recalculation or other proceedings”); cf. Gillette v. Gillette, 226 So. 3d 958, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (a miscalculation in the trial court’s award resulting in former wife owing $1,392.00 too much required reversal for recalculation).
Florida courts, however, have held the failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to a final order is a reversible error. See Minus v. Brockman, 326 So. 3d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J., 165 So. 3d 846, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[B]ecause the requirement for filing a child support guidelines worksheet is mandatory, reversal is required even if the omission is due to the parties’ failure.”). Here, as in Minus, the trial court did not attach the guidelines worksheet to the order, and this failure requires remand to attach the worksheet. This must occur even if the trial court intended to attach the worksheet to the adopted parenting plan, and despite the trial court’s reference to the worksheet in the final order.
Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court to attach the worksheet to the order as required. See Minus, 326 So. 3d at 1157.
Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.
WARNER, LEVINE, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nepola v. Nepola, 355 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…any child support guidelines worksheets to its judgment”); Hiatt v. Mathieu, 350 So. 3d 357, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“The ‘failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to a final order is a reversible error.’” (quoting Dorvilien v. Verty, 335 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022))); Minus v. Brockman, 326 So. 3d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order granting child support must be reversed where a child support guidelines worksheet is not attached to the final judgment.”); Hogan v. Aloia, 257 So.…
-
Dussan v. Ahmed EL Zoghbi, 359 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…erse and remand for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall attach the child support guidelines worksheet to the final order. See Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J., 165 So. 3d 846, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Dorvilien v. Verty, 335 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Tinoco v. Lugo, 342 So. 3d 845, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285(k). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Britni Hiatt v. Mathieu, 350 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…e and potential earnings level, and the adjustments to income.” Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d 1203, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The “failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to a final order is a reversible error.” Dorvilien v. Verty, 335 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Minus v. Brockman, 326 So. 3d 1157, 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)). Remand “must occur even if the trial court intended to attach the worksheet to the adopted parenting plan, and despite the trial court’s reference to th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o K.A.N. v. A.N.J., 165 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Gillette v. Gillette, 226 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Amos v. State, 717 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Levonda Marshae Minus v. Brockman, 326 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Blair Clements v. Rosimeri Clements, 254 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)