CHRISTOPHER HAYDE, APPELLANT,
v.
WINNIFRED HAYDE, 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.
The court held that the trial court must consider substantial visitation when calculating child support as required by statute, and must either explain its deviation or recalculate the award.
The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, awarding substantial visitation to the father. However, the judgment did not appe…
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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage between the appellant, Christopher Hayde, and his former wife, the appellee, Winnifred Hayde, in all respects save one. It appears from the record that the trial court may not have considered the substantial visitation awarded Mr. Hayde with respect to the minor children of this marriage. Section 61.30(ll)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), requires the court to do so.
Section 61.30(ll)(b) provides that when a parenting plan authorizes a child to spend a “substantial” amount of time with each parent, the trial court “shall adjust any award of child support” in accordance with a formula set forth in the statute. The requirement of the statute is mandatory. See Cheverie v. Cheverie, 898 So.2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Section 61.30(11)(b)8. defines “substantial” as meaning “that a parent exercises visitation at least 40 percent of the overnights of the year.”
In the present ease Mr. Hayde is granted in excess of 40 percent of the overnights, yet the face of the judgment does not reflect that this fact was taken into account by the trial court in awarding child support. Accordingly, we remand the judgment to the trial court so that it can either explain with particularity its reasons for ordering the amount of child support, or recalculate the child support in the manner required by the statute. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.
*1090AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Canady v. State, 898 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)