ANTHONY J. BRUMMER, APPELLANT,
v.
NICOLE BRUMMER, 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.
Anthony Brummer appealed a final dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the trial court's conditioning of parenting time on psychological evaluations at his expense, the characterization and distribution of marital property, and the imputation of income for child support. The appellate court reversed portions of the judgment relating to the psychological evaluation condition, property classification, firearm valuations, and income imputation, while affirming other aspects.
The court reversed the psychological evaluation requirement, holding the trial court must make findings that the evaluation is in the children's best interests and that Former Husband has the ability to pay. The court reversed the property characterization of the coffee table, end tables, and watch, which should be awarded to Former Husband as non-marital assets. The court reversed the firearm valuation as improper and remanded for proper valuation. The court reversed the income imputation as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence and remanded for proper determination.
[1] A trial court may not condition shared parenting time upon payment for psychological evaluations and counseling without making findings that the evaluation is in the chil…
[2] A trial court errs in failing to designate specific items as non-marital assets when they are clearly established as such.
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“the trial court made no findings that the evaluation is in the best interests of the children and that Former Husband has the ability to pay for the evaluation”
Establishes the trial court's failure to make necessary factual findings before conditioning parenting time on psychological evaluation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage that required psychological or mental health evaluation of the parties and children…
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 Imputation Of Income For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony Brummer (“Former Husband”) appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (“Final Judgment”) rendered by the trial court. On appeal, Former Husband raises the following arguments: (1) the trial court improperly conditioned his shared parenting time upon his payment for psychological evaluation and counseling for the parties and the children; (2) the trial court’s characterization of marital and non-marital property and equitable distribution of marital property was error; and (3) the trial court’s imputation of income to Former Husband was not supported by adequate findings of fact or competent, substantial evidence in the record.
.As to the first issue, the trial court formulated a time-sharing plan regarding the children and ruled that before it was to be implemented, “the parties and the children shall participate in an evaluation by a psychologist or other licensed mental health professional agreed upon by the parties.” The court further ruled that Former Husband would have to pay the costs of the evaluation. However, the trial court made no findings that the evaluation is in the best interests of the children and that Former Husband has the ability to pay for the evaluation. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the Final Judgment and remand this case to the trial court to determine whether the evaluation is in the best interests of the children and whether Former Husband has the ability to pay for it. See Balas v. Balas, 521 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (requiring that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether suspending the father’s visitation rights pending a psychological evaluation was in the child’s best interests and whether the father had the ability to pay for the evaluation).
As to the second issue, we believe that the trial court erred in failing to designate the coffee table, end tables, and watch as the non-marital assets of Former Husband. We also believe that, with the exception of the two Kimber firearms, the trial court failed to properly establish the value of the firearm collection when determining the equitable distribution of the firearms. Therefore, that part of the equitable distribution plan is reversed, and on remand, the trial court is to award the coffee table, end table, and watch to Former Husband as non-marital assets and properly determine the value of the firearm collection.
Finally, we agree with Former Husband that the imputation of income in the Final Judgment for purposes of child support determinations is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, that part, of the. Final Judgment is reversed, and on remand, the trial court is to properly determine the amount of income to impute to Former Husband as a basis for his child support obligation.
We reverse those parts of the Final Judgment as previously discussed and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. Otherwise, the Final Judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
TORPY, C. J., SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.