Starling v. Starling, BK-436
| Decision Date | 18 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BK-436,BK-436 |
| Citation | 491 So.2d 605,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1580 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1580 Daniel D. STARLING, Appellant, v. Amy H. STARLING, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John A. Colton, of Law Offices of C. Valentine Bates, Gainesville, for appellant.
H. Stephen Pennypacker, of Birr, Bryant, Saier & Ross, P.A., Gainesville, for appellee.
The husband appeals that portion of the trial court's order awarding permanent child support. Finding the trial court abused its discretion, we reverse.
At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the parties were responsible for the care of four children: two children from the marriage, one child from a previous marriage of the wife, and one child from a previous marriage of the husband. For the support of the latter child, the husband is obligated by court order to pay $25 per week. In the final judgment dissolving the marriage, entered on April 23, 1985, the trial court found the husband to be a skilled laborer who was "grossly underemployed." Due to the husband's financial inability to meet the wife's needs for child support as of the time of the final hearing, the court ordered appellant to pay temporary child support in the amount of $325 per month.
The hearing on the wife's motion for an award of permanent child support was held on December 3, 1985. The husband established that his average net weekly income for the year 1985 to the date of the hearing was $173.29, $70.79 more than his average net weekly income as established by the April final judgment. His financial affidavit further showed that his expenses, taking into account the child support payments, exceeded his income by $247.77 per week, and he testified that he was forced to incur debts to friends in order to meet his expenses. On the other hand, the wife's affidavit established that, at the time of the hearing, her expenses were within approximately $30 of her income on a weekly basis, also taking into account the support payments.
Nevertheless, based on the above evidence, the trial court awarded child support at $740 per month, with $240 of that sum abated until the husband had the ability to pay it. As a result, the husband was left with approximately $32 per week on which to live.
Without challenging the actual abatement of child support, the husband argues that to obligate him to pay an amount exceeding by $240 that which the court found him able to pay is contrary to an established principle of law. The husband also argues that to leave him with only $32 per week constitutes an abuse of discretion on the trial court's part. We agree with both contentions.
The established principle of Florida law to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scapin v. Scapin, 89-262
...obligations upon a spouse, it must determine that he or she has the ability to pay the obligations imposed. Starling v. Starling, 491 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Section 61.30(2)(b) provides that when the trial court finds that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, income ......
-
Edwards v. Sanders, 92-4402
...or she has the ability to pay the obligations imposed. Scapin v. Scapin, 547 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (citing Starling v. Starling, 491 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)). In the present case, the trial court's order imputes earnings equivalent to the prevailing minimum wage to appellant.......
-
McCray v. McCray, BN-86
...not have the financial ability to pay the amounts awarded, a necessary factor to be considered in all three awards. Starling v. Starling, 491 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); DeHart v. DeHart, 360 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1978). The combined alimony and child support totaled, according to the husband'......