TERRY J. WOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
DONNA F. WOOD, APPELLEE
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.
In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's orders regarding marital debt allocation and AFDC reimbursement, but reversed and remanded the child support award because the trial court ordered payments exceeding the former husband's demonstrated net income without making required statutory findings or determining ability to pay.
The court affirmed the trial court's orders regarding marital debt allocation and AFDC reimbursement but reversed and remanded the child support award. The reversal was necessary because the trial court ordered child support payments exceeding the former husband's demonstrated ability to pay and failed to make required statutory findings for any departure from guidelines or income imputation.
[1] A trial court's determination of child support is within its sound discretion, subject to statutory guidelines and the test of reasonableness.
[2] Before imposing financial obligations on a spouse, a court must determine the spouse's ability to pay.
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“Before the court may impose financial obligations upon a spouse, it must determine that he or she has the ability to pay the obligations imposed.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that ability to pay must be established before imposing child support obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry J. Wood and Donna F. Wood dissolved their marriage. The trial court ordered Terry to pay $1,584 per month in child support, despite evidence sho…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appeal from the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Former husband Terry J. Wood raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in determining the amount of his child support obligation; (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering him responsible for most the marital debts; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering him to reimburse the State for amounts of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) support paid. We find no merit in the former husband’s second and third issues, and affirm without further discussion. We do find merit as to the first issue, requiring us to reverse and remand.
The determination of child support is within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory guidelines and the test of reasonableness. Scapin v. Sca-pin, 547 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Before the court may impose financial obligations upon a spouse, it must determine that he or .she has the ability to pay the obligations imposed. Id. at 1013. Further, any departure from the child support guidelines or any attempt to impute income must be supported by appropriate findings, as specifically required by section 61.30, Fla.Stat. (1991). Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Here, the trial court ordered former husband to pay child support in an amount higher than what the evidence indicated he earned. Specifically, the former husband was ordered to pay an amount totaling $1,584 per month, while the evidence indicated his net income was only $1,408 per month. The trial court never determined whether the former husband had the ability to pay this amount. Nor did the trial court make any findings as required by section 61.30, Florida Statutes, for departing from the guidelines amount or for imputing income to the former husband. As a result, the trial court’s order is legally insufficient to support the award of child support. See, e.g., Edwards v. Sanders, 622 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We reverse the trial court’s order as to the amount of child support and remand for further proceedings consistent to this opinion. All other aspects of the trial court’s order are affirmed.
' BOOTH, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scapin v. Scapin, 547 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Neal v. Meek, 591 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Edwards v. Sanders, 622 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)