PAUL H. WEHRUM, APPELLANT,
v.
TAMMY J. WEHRUM, APPELLEE
SHAHOOD, J.
This is an appeal of a non-final order by appellant, former husband, which awarded extended visitation to appellee, former wife, and ordered appellant to pay appellee child support during the period of extended visitation. Appellant has filed a suggestion of mootness as to that portion of the order awarding extended visitation and we therefore decline to address it.
The second issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in ordering appellant to pay child support to appellee during the period of extended visitation. Appellee, former wife, concedes, and we agree, that while the trial court has the authority to reduce child support during periods of extended visitation, it does not have the authority to order the custodial parent to pay child support to the noncustodial parent during the period of extended visitation. See § 61.30(ll)(g), Florida Statutes; Gomez v. Gomez, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lane v. State, 867 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ould have required acquittal, yet the theft element was also omitted from the jury instruction defining the crime of resisting a merchant’s employee’s efforts to recover stolen property. As we have held, such an omission is error. Williams v. State, 745 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“Appellant correctly argues that the jury should have been instructed that in order to convict appellant of resisting a retail merchant it had to find that appellant was committing or had committed theft.”). Because this el…
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)