Child support was not calculated correctly - Florida

[lt1980]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I went to court to get my support modified in accordance with the timesharing plan that my ex and I had set up. I get 40% of the time (145 overnights), she gets 60% (220 overnights). The hearing officer had even spoken about the timesharing during the trial but for some reason, it did not get imputed into the calculations. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I didn't notice until I got home. I had thought the number was high, but couldn't figure out why. I tried to calculate it myself, using the formula given, and the amount that I am paying is over $400 more than I should be since I do have the kids a substantial amount of time.


My question is this- what options do I have to 1) find out the correct calculation (is there an "official" calculator for Florida?) and 2) get the court to change it? I have gotten conflicting answers from the clerk of courts and the department of revenue.

Thanks so much!

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I went to court to get my support modified in accordance with the timesharing plan that my ex and I had set up. I get 40% of the time (145 overnights), she gets 60% (220 overnights). The hearing officer had even spoken about the timesharing during the trial but for some reason, it did not get imputed into the calculations. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I didn't notice until I got home. I had thought the number was high, but couldn't figure out why. I tried to calculate it myself, using the formula given, and the amount that I am paying is over $400 more than I should be since I do have the kids a substantial amount of time.


My question is this- what options do I have to 1) find out the correct calculation (is there an "official" calculator for Florida?) and 2) get the court to change it? I have gotten conflicting answers from the clerk of courts and the department of revenue.

Thanks so much!

You need to file a motion for reconsideration based on an error in the calculation. I suspect that if you did not have an attorney to start with, you really need one now. It can be difficult to get errors corrected without one.

 

[tuffbrk]

You need to file a motion for reconsideration based on an error in the calculation. I suspect that if you did not have an attorney to start with, you really need one now. It can be difficult to get errors corrected without one.

More true than most folks realize. I have a good friend in FL who has been to court numerous times as the CS is calculated to be more than their earnings. So far, no relief has been granted. Now waiting on a date in Appellate court. Craziness...

 

[Ohiogal]

A deviation is NOT guaranteed to be substantially lower because of time share:
El-Hajji v. El-Hajji, 67 So.3d 256, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2511 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2010)
Florida Court of Appeals, Second District
November 17, 2010
67 So.3d 256
35 Fla. L. Weekly D2511

The final judgment awards the parties shared parental responsibility of their minor child, with the child spending approximately forty percent of the time with the Wife and sixty percent of the time with the Husband.[1] The final judgment also directs the Wife to pay the Husband monthly child support.

In fact:
Crouch v. Crouch, 898 So.2d 177, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D715 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2005)
Florida Court of Appeal, Fifth District
March 11, 2005
898 So.2d 177
30 Fla. L. Weekly D715

Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2003) contains child support guidelines. The "guideline amount as determined by this section presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support," though the court may deviate, "plus or minus 5 percent, from the guideline amount, after considering all relevant factors." § 61.30(1)(a). A deviation of more than five percent from the guideline amount is proper only upon a written finding by the court explaining why ordering such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Id. Section 61.30(1)(a) further provides that:


Notwithstanding the variance limitations of this section, the trier of fact shall order payment of child support which varies from the guideline amount ... whenever any of the children are required by court order or mediation agreement to spend a substantial amount of time with the primary and secondary residential parents. This requirement applies to any living arrangement, whether temporary or permanent.

So 5% is what should be attributed however in that case cited:

Two problems exist with the child support issue. First, the trial court made no finding as to the incomes of each parent. Second, the court failed to calculate the total support obligation as per section 61.30, Florida Statutes. See Jones v. Johnson, 747 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

This is not to imply that the trial court erred in its ultimate decision declining to adopt guideline support. This case offers several interesting twists relative to child support. First, each parent was essentially given equal custody of the children on a rotating basis. As the trial court noted, under such circumstances, where neither parent is designated as "primary" or "secondary" residential parent, a court has discretion to deviate from the support guidelines. See Constantino v. Constantino, 823 So.2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Second, as the trial court found (and neither party disputes) each party is financially able to meet the support needs of the children during the period when the children reside with them. In other words, there is no indication of any need on the part of either parent for an award of child support.

Third, while the parents are able to meet the children's support needs, one parent, the former wife, appears to earn substantially more income, derived from non-marital assets, than the former husband. Does this disparity in income, of itself, warrant as a matter of law, an award of child support to the former husband? Finley v. Scott, 707 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1998), indicates a negative answer to this question.

How much are your child's expenses?

And -- have you had a voluntary decrease in income?

Camus v. Prokosch, 882 So.2d 428, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1915 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2004)
Florida Court of Appeal, First District
August 19, 2004
882 So.2d 428
29 Fla. L. Weekly D1915

In conclusion, we reiterate that a parent's financial position cannot be voluntarily decreased to lessen his or her child support obligations. We find that under the circumstances in this case, the trial court erred in calculating appellee's net income by deducting the amounts transferred to his wife. We remand with directions to recalculate child support guidelines pursuant to the formula prescribed by section 61.30, consistent with this opinion.

You may be entitled to a deviation but it might not be in the amount you believe it should be.

In addition, was this a judge or an administrative hearing? Administrative hearings cannot deviate -- judges/courts have to make specific findings of fact in order to deviate from the guidelines. Something that a hearing officer may not necessarily be able to do unless they are a judge/magistrate.

 

[Zigner]

itguy76 - please start your own thread. Thank you.