Winters v. Katseralis, 92-04115

Decision Date03 September 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-04115,92-04115
Citation623 So.2d 613
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D1945 Floyd J. WINTERS, Appellant, v. Nadya KATSERALIS, f/k/a Nadya Golubov, f/k/a Nadya Winters, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

John P. Fleck, Jr., Bradenton, for appellant.

Paulette R. Pace, Bradenton, for appellee.


Mr. Winters, the former husband, appeals an order modifying child support payable to Ms. Katseralis, the former wife. This divorced couple has two children. The father has custody of the son, and the mother has custody of the daughter. We conclude that the amount of child support stated in the order deviates from the amount established by the child support guidelines, and that the trial court failed to make a written finding in its order or a specific finding on the record to justify the deviation. Section 61.30(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).

At the time of the hearing on the petition for modification of child support, both parents were teachers. Mr. Winters' net monthly income was $1,985, and Ms. Katseralis' net monthly income was $1,320. With a combined net monthly income of $3,305, the child support guidelines suggest that two children should receive total monthly support of $1,052. Section 61.30(6), Fla.Stat. (1991). Because the father earns 60% of the combined net income, his share of the child support should be $631 and the mother's share should be $421. Section 61.30(8), Fla.Stat. (1991).

The mathematics of child support are more complex in this case because each parent has custody of one child. All things being equal, the father should pay the mother the difference between their respective obligations, i.e., $210 per month. The trial court, however, ordered the father to pay $325. Thus, Mr. Winters is effectively contributing $851 in support of the children, while Ms. Katseralis contributes $201. 1

Although our record is limited, 2 it appears that Mr. Winters voluntarily paid Ms. Katseralis $325 each month for his daughter's support after his son came to live with him. This amount, however, was not established by any stipulation, and the trial court made no finding that Mr. Winters was bound by any agreement to maintain this amount.

The child support guidelines are reasonably flexible. The trial court is authorized to adjust the award based upon a number of considerations. Section 61.30(10), Fla.Stat. (1991). In this case, it is possible that the trial court may have a valid reason to deviate from the guidelines. However, it made no written finding in its order to explain its deviation. The specific findings on the record indicate that the trial court did not intend for the parties to exchange monthly support checks and that the father's $325 child support payment was a net amount, adjusted to reflect the mother's obligation to support her son. The findings state that the husband...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Thilem v. Thilem, 94-1936
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1995
    ...without specific findings regarding each child's needs and the husband's ability to pay. See Sec. 61.30(1)(a); Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Under the requirements of section 61.30(9), the trial court had already considered the husband's greater ability to pay whe......
  • Kelley v. Kelley, 93-2627
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1995 enter written findings explaining why ordering payment of the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Glover v. Glover, 601 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sec. 61.30(1)(a), Fla.Stat. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS In ......
  • Stewart v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1997 provide reasons for the deviation beyond the 5% range. See Rogers v. Rogers, 632 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court should also have been authorized to reconsider the amount of permanent alimony awarded to th......
  • Arze v. Sadough-Arze, 4D00-2816.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 2001
    ...DCA 1998); Brock v. Brock, 695 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Gingola v. Velasco, 668 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). In this case, the Husband picks the child up from school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and transports him to school on W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Alimony and support
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...DCA 2000) (court properly calculated child support obligation according to split custody child support formula); Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (mathematics of child support are more complex when each parent has custody of one child; all things being equal, father ......
  • Child support myths and truths: exploring the assumptions underlying Florida's statutory guidelines.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 73 No. 9, October 1999
    • October 1, 1999
    ...the guidelines chart was based on statistics relating to an "intact" family. A second common approach was used in Winters v. Kasteralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The trial court in a split custody case was instructed to divide the total child support obligation by the number of ch......
  • What do I do now? All of the children are not exercising the same time-sharing schedule.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 84 No. 1, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...for split residence cases (when different children of the family live with different parents) beginning with Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613, (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Since then, a series of cases has provided differing formula approaches to split residence cases. These cases have been des......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT