Levi v. Levi, 3D99-01261.
| Decision Date | 28 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D99-01261.,3D99-01261. |
| Parties | Audrey LEVI, Appellant, v. Israel LEVI, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marks & West, and Cynthia L. Greene, for appellant.
Stanley M. Newmark, for appellee.
Before COPE, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
The former wife, Audrey Levi, appeals a post-judgment final order on her petition for modification. We reverse because the trial judge did not make the requisite findings and failed to make the modification retroactive.
The parties were divorced in 1992. Pursuant to the Marital Settlement Agreement, the father, Israel Levi, was obligated to pay the sum of $1,120.00 per month as support for the parties' three minor children. He was also required to provide medical insurance for the children and was given the right to claim the children as dependents on his personal federal income tax return. The Agreement also set forth a detailed visitation schedule for the father and the parties' children. Two years following the entry of the Final Judgment, the father remarried and relocated to Puerto Rico where he manages an office equipment company owned by his new father-in-law. The children reside in Miami with the mother, who is the primary custodial parent.
At the time of the entry of the Final Judgment, the father earned a net monthly income of $2,476.00. His gross monthly income later increased to $9,500.00 in 1995 and $11,000.00 in 1996. In 1997, coincidentally with the wife's petitioning for modification, the father's monthly salary was reduced to $7,500.00 and he was provided with an automobile, purchased by his father-in-law, and automobile insurance paid for by his employer.1 The father testified that the reduction in his monthly salary was due to his employer's deteriorated financial condition. The mother's accountant testified that the father's automobile reimbursed expenses had a value of $6,000.00 per year or $500.00 per month.
In its Final Order, the trial court increased the child support from $1,120.00 to $1,803.00 per month (reducing the award by $75.00 per month due to the travel expenses for visitation paid by the father and the mother's dependency exemption award), denied the request for retroactive child support, amended the visitation schedule to reflect the father's move to Puerto Rico, and ordered the parties to be responsible for their own attorney's fees.
In its order, the trial court erroneously failed to make findings of fact as to the amount of either party's income or the manner in which the court computed its award pursuant to the child support guidelines. Where the trial court fails to set forth findings regarding the parties' actual incomes or adjustments to income, an appellate court cannot ascertain whether a child support award is within the guidelines. See Wilcox v. Wilcox, 729 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) . Under these circumstances, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrest v. Ron, 3D0-3498.
...to pay, and such attendance is in the child's best interest, if they agree that the child should attend private school, Levi v. Levi, 780 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), such attendance is in their customary standard of living, see Bell v. Bell, 811 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Thomas v. Tho......
-
Miller v. Miller, 1D01-4389.
...an increase in child support. "When child support is modified, retroactivity is the rule rather than the exception." Levi v. Levi, 780 So.2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Nierenberg v. Nierenberg, 758 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). The trial court's stated rationale for declin......
-
Thyrre v. Thyrre
...or adjustments to income, an appellate court cannot ascertain whether a child support award is within the guidelines." Levi v. Levi, 780 So.2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding in modification of child support appeal that "the trial court erroneously failed to make findings of fact as to......
-
Mayfield v. Mayfield
...is the rule rather than the exception.” Miller v. Miller, 826 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting Levi v. Levi, 780 So.2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). “It is an abuse of discretion ... to fail to award support from the date of the petition for modification where the need for the su......
-
We're back: the appellate court said you didn't find anything.
...raised in the trial court or not) if the absence of the statutory findings frustrates this court's appellate review. See Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); McCarty v. McCarty, 710 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Dorsett v. Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005),......