Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 93-2713
| Decision Date | 23 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2713,93-2713 |
| Citation | 632 So.2d 257 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D444 Suzanne Lancaster PRIDGEON, Appellant, v. Thomas E. PRIDGEON, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sandra K. Haas of Airth, Sellers, Lewis & Prevatt, Live Oak, for appellant.
Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Perry, for appellee.
Suzanne Pridgeon seeks review of several provisions contained in the final judgment which dissolved her eight-year marriage to Thomas Pridgeon, Jr. The Pridgeon marriage produced a son, age 5 at the time of the final judgment. We reverse and remand because the trial court did not follow the statutory guidelines in establishing child support for the son and failed to award Mrs. Pridgeon two items of nonmarital property. On remand we also direct the trial court to revisit the matter of summer visitation between Mrs. Pridgeon and her son. We find no abuse of discretion in the general custodial arrangement arrived at by the trial court, nor in the equitable distribution, save the two items that will be specifically addressed.
The dispute over primary residential parent and corresponding visitation between the Pridgeons and their son was particularly bitter. The trial court sorted through the testimony and reports of several mental health professionals and also observed the demeanor and testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Pridgeon. The judge then required shared parental responsibility and established the child's primary residence and visitation as follows:
The Petitioner/wife, SUZANNE LANCASTER PRIDGEON, shall be the primary residential parent of the minor child, BRIAN KEITH PRIDGEON, during the school year which shall be defined as that period that runs from five days prior to the commencement of the school year until five days after the end of the school year. During this time, the Respondent/husband shall have the right to visit with the minor child as follows:
(a) Every other weekend from Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday evening at 6:00 p.m.;
(b) Each party shall have one-half of the Christmas holiday period; during even-numbered years, the Respondent/husband shall have the minor child from the day school is out until 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day and the Petitioner/wife shall have the minor child from 10:00 on Christmas Day through New Year's Day; and during odd-numbered years, the Petitioner/wife shall have the minor child from the day after school is out until 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day and the Respondent/husband shall have the minor child from 10:00 a.m. on Christmas Day through New Year's Day;
(c) During odd-numbered years, the Petitioner/wife shall have the minor child during spring break, Labor Day and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, including any weekend associated with those holidays, and the Respondent/husband shall have those same holiday periods during even-numbered years; and during even-numbered years, the Petitioner/wife shall have the minor child on Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day and Veteran Day, including any weekend associated with those holidays, and the Respondent/husband shall have those same holiday periods during odd-numbered years;
(d) Irrespective of any other dates and times recited herein, the Respondent/husband shall have the minor child for Father's Day weekend and the Petitioner/wife shall have the minor child during Mother's Day weekend;
(e) The Respondent/husband shall be the primary residential parent of the minor child during the summer which shall be defined as the period from five days after the end of the school year until five days prior to the commencement of the next school year. The Petitioner/wife shall have the right to visit for a one week period beginning with the first Saturday in July and ending on the second Saturday in July, and liberal telephone access as described below.
Mr. Pridgeon owns a small motor sales and repair business in Mayo. Mrs. Pridgeon earned her R.N. degree in April 1986 and worked as a nurse until late 1991, when she had to leave her job to undergo cataract surgery. The decretal portion of the final judgment addresses child support as follows:
The Court finds that it would be equitable for the Respondent/husband to pay child support in the amount of $300 monthly for a period of six months; however, the Court directs that the child support be amortized over the full nine months of the school year. Therefore, Respondent/husband shall pay regular child support in the amount of $200 per month, on the first day of each of the nine months of the school year, commencing September 1, each year and running through and including May 1. Regular child support payments shall commence September 1, 1993. The Respondent/husband will not be required to pay child support the three months he is the residential parent, and the Petitioner/wife will be given credit for paying child support for the three summer months.
The trial court found as a fact that "the petitioner/wife is an able bodied woman with an R.N. degree who is well able to support herself." The court made no findings, however, concerning Mrs. Pridgeon's income, either actual or imputed. Mr. Pridgeon filed with the court a "Child Support Guideline Calculation," which imputed income to Mrs. Pridgeon in an amount of $731 a month. Nothing in the final judgment elucidates the trial court's declaration that equity would require Mr. Pridgeon to pay child support for six months; however, such support would be amortized over "the full nine months of the school year."
Before the marriage, Mrs. Pridgeon owned a 20 cubic foot refrigerator and a 22 cubic foot freezer. The refrigerator is now located at Mr. Pridgeon's home; the freezer rests on "husband's mother's porch." Mr. Pridgeon does not dispute his former wife's ownership of these two appliances before the marriage, nor does he dispute the trial court's failure to address ownership and equitable distribution of these particular assets. Rather, Mr. Pridgeon argues that his former wife has failed to prove that he "refuses to return two items to her," and generally that the matter is too trivial to be reviewed by this court.
We begin with the household appliances. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities...." The final judgment in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Dibble
...are properly left to the sound discretion of a trial judge, see Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1975); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So.2d 257, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the lower court's "best interests" decision must be affirmed unless this court finds the determination to be unsupport......
-
Adamson v. Chavis
...determined according to what is perceived to be in the best interest of the child. § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla.Stat. (1995); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Not infrequently, trial courts are called upon to predict the effects upon a child of exposure to proposed conditions......
-
Kelley v. Kelley, 95-2336
...DCA 1995); Green v. Green, 650 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Collinsworth v. Collinsworth, 624 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court shall revisit the equitable......
-
Justice v. Justice
...not required to award them to appellant because she testified he was already in possession of these items. In Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So.2d 257, 259–60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the trial court failed to award a former wife a refrigerator and freezer she acquired prior to the marriage that wer......
-
Alimony and support
...2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (express findings must be made regarding amount and source of income to impute income); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (findings of fact must be included in judgment imputing income to parent).] Imputation of income must be supported by s......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(express findings must be made regarding amount and source of income to impute income); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(findings of fact must be included in judgment imputing income to parent); Tipton v. Crody, 872 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA ......