Rainsberger v. Rainsberger
| Decision Date | 28 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-896.,2D01-896. |
| Citation | 819 So.2d 275 |
| Parties | Kirby C. RAINSBERGER, Appellant, v. Diana RAINSBERGER n/k/a Diana Mason, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kirby C. Rainsberger, pro se.
No appearance for Appellee Diana Rainsberger n/k/a Diana Mason.
The former husband, Kirby Rainsberger ("the Husband"), appeals from an order modifying child support. Because the trial court erred in failing to utilize the child support guidelines that were in effect at the time of the hearing and in ordering the Husband to pay certain expenses in addition to the support, we reverse.
The trial court concluded that the Husband was not entitled to any offset in child support based on the amount of time he spent with the child. The Husband argues that he is entitled to an offset under the amended version of section 61.30, Florida Statutes, which became effective on October 1, 1999. We agree. "A trial court must apply the child support guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when the amendment becomes effective." Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So.2d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Whight v. Whight, 635 So.2d 135, 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
. The amended version of the statute, which was in effect at the time of the hearing of April 4, 2000, was the correct law to be applied.
Under the amended version of the statute, a trial court is required to vary the guideline amount if a child is required "to spend a substantial amount of time with the primary and secondary residential parents." § 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). Here, the parties' custody agreement called for the Wife to have residential custody for nine consecutive days, followed by the Husband having custody for five consecutive days, and for the child to spend one-half of the summer, approximately five weeks, with each parent. Thus, because this is essentially a rotating custody arrangement, in order to satisfy section 61.30, the formula for computing child support set out in Jones v. Johnson, 747 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), should have been applied here. See Cole v. Cole, 792 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
(). Under this formula, a trial court should: (1) calculate the total child support award and each parent's share under the guidelines; (2) determine the amount of time each parent has the child and reduce it to a percentage; (3) proportion the total child support award to each parent, based on the percentage of time each parent has the child with him or her; and (4) offset each parent's dollar responsibility under the guidelines. Jones, 747 So.2d at 1068; Cole, 792 So.2d at 606. Bec...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newberry v. Newberry, 5D02-362.
...trial court must apply the guidelines as amended to a case that is pending when an amendment becomes effective. Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285(j) requires the worksheet and Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. If the ......
-
Buhler v. Buhler, 5D05-804.
...child support obligation in accordance with the legislative requirement. See § 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003); Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court declined to apply the adjustment, reasoning that in the past, the father had not spent 40 percent......
- Tedder v. Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, Inc.
-
Cheverie v. Cheverie, 5D04-1156.
...must vary the guideline in accordance with the legislative requirement. See § 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004); Rainsberger v. Rainsberger, 819 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). If Mr. Cheverie fails to avail himself of his court-authorized 40% visitation privilege, Mrs. Cheverie is provided......