Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 95-00129
| Decision Date | 08 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-00129,95-00129 |
| Citation | 669 So.2d 309 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D605 Diane M. WHITCOMB, Appellant, v. Wayne A. WHITCOMB, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; James R. Case, Judge.
Dyril L. Flanagan, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Patrick F. Gaffney of Peacock & Gaffney, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee.
The parties in this case were divorced in 1991. The final judgment of dissolution approved and incorporated their marital settlement agreement. In December 1994, the trial court entered an order modifying the final judgment as it pertained to Mr. Whitcomb's child support obligations. Mrs. Whitcomb challenges this order on several grounds. She contends the court erred in eliminating the husband's monthly cash child support payment and, instead, extending her exclusive possession of the former marital home. She also challenges the court's modification of Mr. Whitcomb's obligations concerning the children's medical and dental expenses. In addition, she claims the court erred in calculating the amount of arrearages the husband owed and in failing to award her attorney's fees. We affirm the denial of attorney's fees without discussion. For the reasons explained below, we find merit in some of Mrs. Whitcomb's arguments and reverse the order of modification in part.
The judgment of dissolution compelled Mr. Whitcomb to pay $300.00 per month in child support for each of his two children. In January 1992, he lost his job and moved to modify the final judgment. At this time, his daughters were sixteen and fourteen years old. In December 1994, when the lower court entered the order on modification, his younger daughter was still a minor. The parties stipulated that, under the child support guidelines, the husband was required to pay $206.70 per month to support this child. The marital settlement agreement provided that the former marital home was to be listed for sale on May 1, 1994. The court granted the wife exclusive possession of the home until April 8, 1996, when the younger daughter reaches majority, in lieu of cash child support.
The lower court found that Mr. Whitcomb's involuntary lay-off from his employment and his inability to find comparable work constituted a substantial change in circumstances that permitted modification of the marital settlement agreement. Under section 61.30(13), Florida Statutes (1993), a court may, if a parent's recurring income is not sufficient to meet the needs of the child, order that child support be paid from assets. Here, however, the court made no finding that Mr. Whitcomb's income was insufficient to pay cash support. Nor did the court assign a dollar value to the wife's continued possession of the home. See Dyer v. Dyer, 658 So.2d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The court merely stated that its award of exclusive possession effectively eliminated the husband's right to immediately receive his share of the proceeds from a sale of the home. 1 We cannot tell from this record whether the court has departed from the child support guidelines or not. See § 61.30(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1994) (). We, therefore, remand to the lower court to make specific findings concerning the husband's ability to pay, the dollar value of the wife's continued possession of the marital home and how it arrived at this value.
The marital settlement agreement obligated the husband to provide medical and dental insurance for the children and to pay fifty percent of the uncovered expenses. He had failed to do so since he lost his job. The court found that the wife had spent $2,266.05 on the children's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Revenue on Behalf of Hall v. Hall, 96-985
...to include the vested but unpaid child support and should make specific findings to support its determination. See Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). DOR also challenges the portion of the order directing the former husband to pay $25 per month toward the arrearage with......
-
Torres v. Torres, 96-03261.
...where former husband had not sought modification of Ohio judgment ordering him to pay support for parties' child); Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (where court had not modified husband's obligation to pay half of medical costs not paid by insurance he remained respons......
-
Guida v. Guida, 2D02-5736.
...cash support requirement and a valuation of the asset being invaded to meet the child support obligations. Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So.2d 309, 310-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Clayton v. Lloyd, 707 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA The final judgment in this case fails to include findings as to eithe......
-
Simmons v. Simmons, 4D05-1246.
...might we cannot discern if it is in this case. Thus, we reverse the award for reconsideration by the trial court. See Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The former wife also claims that the court erred in denying her petition for an upward modification of child support.......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...names for estate planning purposes, husband met his burden of proof of showing that no gift to wife was intended); Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court may order that child support be paid from assets, where party’s income is insufficient to pay child support......
-
Alimony and support
...of marital home are error where spouse is ordered to make mortgage payments instead of temporary child support); Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 669 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (court may order that child support be paid from assets, wife’s continued possession of parties’ former home, where party’......