ALLISON A. JUDKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND JOSE S. BRICENO, APPELLEES
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 lower tribunal erred in its child support calculations regarding uncovered medical expenses and the amount of retroactive support awarded.
Appellant appealed a final administrative child support order, citing errors in the child support calculations. The lower tribunal ordered the father …
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals a final administrative child support order, asserting several errors with regard to the lower tribunal’s child support calculations. We find merit in two of appellant’s issues, as to which the Department of Revenue concedes error, and reverse for correction of the final order. As to appellant’s remaining issues, we affirm, finding either no abuse of discretion or appellant’s arguments unpre-served.
The lower tribunal ordered the father to pay “0% of the child’s medical, vision, dental and prescription medication expenses not covered by insurance.” Section 61.80(8), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “[hjealth insurance costs resulting from coverage ... and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.” See also Clark v. Clark, 837 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the lower tribunal to provide for an award of the child’s future uncovered medical expenses in accordance with the father’s percentage share of child support.
In addition, the Department of Revenue concedes that the total amount of retroac*463tive child support awarded in the final support order is inconsistent with the lower tribunal’s oral pronouncement. At the hearing, the lower tribunal stated it was awarding $26,368.00 in retroactive support. Its order, however, reflects the total retroactive support amount as $23,368.00. As such, we remand for the lower tribunal to conform the final order to its oral pronouncement and to its other calculations as set forth in the order. See Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So.3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Hall, 118 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ts with the children throughout the year and that Appellee would have forty-two percent of the overnights. Reversal is required where a written judgment is inconsistent with a trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Judkins v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 84 So. 3d 462, 462-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We, therefore, reverse the written judgment as to the timesharing issue and remand with instructions t…
Authorities Cited
- Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Michaela Miller v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 837 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Clark v. Clark, 837 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)