EDRULFO ANTONIO LARGAESPADA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA RAQUEL CHAMORRO LARGAESPADA, 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.
A father conditionally offered to waive his statutory right to a child support reduction if granted six overnight visits per fourteen days instead of five. The trial court denied the six overnights but still held the father waived his statutory rights. The appellate court reversed, holding that an unaccepted conditional offer cannot form the basis of an enforceable agreement, and the father is entitled to the statutory support reduction based on the actual custody arrangement awarded.
The court held that an unaccepted offer cannot form the basis of an enforceable agreement. Absent mutual assent and meeting of the minds on essential terms, no valid agreement exists. The father is unequivocally entitled to the statutory support reduction under section 61.30(11)(b) because the actual custody arrangement awarded (five overnights per two weeks plus summer and holiday time) totals at least 146 overnights per year, meeting the 40 percent threshold.
[1] An unaccepted offer cannot form the basis of an enforceable agreement.
[2] A legally enforceable agreement requires a meeting of the minds as to its essential terms.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Absent mutual assent, neither the contract nor any of its provisions come into existence.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that an enforceable agreement requires mutual consent to essential terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were in a post-dissolution hearing concerning the father's support and visitation rights with his five-year-old child. The father stated h…
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 Mutual Assent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
During a post-final judgment of dissolution hearing concerning the appellant-father’s support and visitation rights with his five-year-old child, he stated that if he were granted six, rather than five, overnight visits during every fourteen-day period, he would forego the right conferred by section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 to a reduction of child support. The appellee-mother did not agree to and the trial court did not order the six overnights which were a condition of the “offer.” Instead, after subsequent hearings, the parties agreed to five overnights. Notwithstanding, in the order under review, the trial court held that the father had in fact waived his section 61.30(ll)(b) rights. We reverse on the basis of the elementary principle that an unaccepted offer cannot form the basis of an enforceable agreement. See State v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So. 2d 474, 480 (Fla.1993)(“Absent mutual assent, neither the contract nor any of its provisions come into existence.”); City Of Miami v. Case, 882 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(“In order for there to be a legally enforceable agreement, whether oral or in writing, the parties must have had a meeting of the minds, i.e., an agreement, as to its essential terms.”), review denied, 909 So. 2d 861 (Fla.2005); Sorocka v. Severe, 858 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(“An acceptance is effective to create a contract only if it is absolute and unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer.”).
It is clear that, in the thus-determined absence of a valid contrary agreement, the father is unequivocally entitled to a statutory reduction in' support under the circumstances. The judgment awards the father five overnights per two-week period plus additional custody for the summer and holidays. This amounts to at least 146 overnights a year, the “40 percent” provided by section 61.30(ll)(b)10 to require a reduction in support. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review dismissed, 846 So. 2d 1148 (Fla.2003); Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review denied, 842 So. 2d 844 (Fla.2003); see generally Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) and cases cited; Harwood v. Ying Li 909 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Santiago v. Santiago, 830 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We therefore reverse the order below and remand with directions to compute and effect the reduction.
Reversed and remanded.
.Section 61.30(ll)(b) provides
Whenever a particular shared parental arrangement provides that each child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent, the court shall adjust any award of child support, as follows:
1. In accordance with subsections (9) and (10), calculate the amount of support obligation apportioned to the noncustodial parent without including day care and health insurance costs in the calculation and multiply the amount by 1.5.
2. In accordance with subsections (9) and (10), calculate the amount of support obligation apportioned to the custodial parent without including day care and health insurance costs in the calculation and multiply the amount by 1.5.
3. Calculate the percentage of overnight stays the child spends with each parent. 4. Multiply the noncustodial parent's support obligation as calculated in subparagraph 1. by the percentage of the custodial parent's overnight stays with the child as calculated in subparagraph 3.
5. Multiply the custodial parent's support obligation as calculated in subparagraph 2. by the percentage of the noncustodial parent’s overnight stays with the child as calculated in subparagraph 3.
6. The difference between the amounts calculated in subparagraphs 4. and 5. shall be the monetary transfer necessary between the custodial and noncustodial parents for the care of the child, subject to an adjustment for day care and health insurance expenses.
8. Adjust the support obligation owed by the custodial or noncustodial parent pursuant to subparagraph 6. by crediting or debiting the amount calculated in subparagraph 7. This amount represents the child support which must be exchanged between the custodial and noncustodial parents.
10. For purposes of adjusting any award of child support under this paragraph, "substantial amount of time” means that the noncustodial parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horacio A. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 958 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…do find that the husband is not entitled to a section 61.30(1 l)(b) credit because his counsel stipulated below that the agreed visitation amounted to less than the 146 overnights (40 percent) provided by the statute. Cf. Largaespada v. Largaespada, 920 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). . The trial judge awarded the husband’s interest in the marital home, the parties' only valuable asset, to the wife as lump sum alimony. The propriety of this award may be heavily impacted by the rulings after remand. (The husba…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fam. Bank OF Hallandale, 623 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1993)
- Franz Edward Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Santiago v. Santiago, 830 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Harwood v. LI, 909 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Sorocka v. Severe, 858 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Syntheon, L.L.C. v. Scilogy Corp., 882 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Holloman v. State, 882 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)