Harrison v. Harrison

8 Citing cases

  1. Weinstein v. Steele

    590 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    In Hinshelwood v. Hinshelwood, 564 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), Judge Sharp, specially concurring, stated that it was unfair and inequitable to award child support in an amount below that established by the guidelines for parents who earn up to $50,000. That reasoning was adopted by the First District Court of Appeal in Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), where the court directed the trial court to "use the maximum presumptive guidelines amount as a `floor' to the child support award. . . ." Harrison, 573 So.2d at 1020.

  2. State Dept. of Revenue v. Sumblin

    675 So. 2d 691 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that child support guidelines are applicable to modification proceedings and may provide the basis for finding a substantial change in circumstances, and that the guidelines amount is presumptively the amount the trier of fact shall order in either an initial or modification proceeding

    Apparently the trial court did not do so, as there are no specific findings on that issue. See Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). If the court finds it appropriate to impute income, it should then calculate the respective guidelines obligations based on the imputed income. According to our informal calculations, whether or not income is imputed, there is a difference between support currently being paid and the guidelines amount for the parties' incomes of more than fifteen percent or $50, which may justify a finding of a substantial change in circumstances.

  3. Pelton v. Pelton

    617 So. 2d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 15 times

    The former Husband argued that the list of allowable deductions is not exclusive, and that the trial court's failure to allow him to deduct the amount paid in alimony brought about a result not intended by the legislature. In Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we held that the trial court had erred in permitting the husband to deduct the amount of his disability and dental practice overhead insurance prior to the determination of appropriate child support. In Harrison, as in the case at bar, the item for which deduction was sought was not among the statutory deductions in section 61.30(3).

  4. Steinberg v. Steinberg

    614 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    In Steinberg, we recognized that, where there is no issue of ability to pay significantly more, an award of rehabilitative alimony alone is proper only where the record supports a conclusion that the spouse is capable of establishing a standard of living reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed in the marriage.

    No competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination. E.g., Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (remanding for the trial court to reassess dental practice where no competent evidence supported court's valuation of $45,000 when only evidence submitted valued practice between $100,000 and $120,000). Wife's contribution to husband's practice.

  5. Torres v. Hunter

    592 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    In so ordering, the trial court stated that the "needs of the child, as established by the testimony of the parties, do not exceed $500 per month and [the former husband] has no obligation to support the Former Wife, her present husband or the child of the present marriage." In Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we stated that when the combined income exceeds the $50,000 maximum provided in section 61.30, a trial court should nevertheless "use the maximum presumptive guidelines amount as a `floor' to the child support award. . . ." See also Barrs v. Barrs, 590 So.2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Weinstein v. Steele, 590 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

  6. Barrs v. Barrs

    590 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    In Barrs v. Barrs, 590 So.2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court held that it is "inappropriate for a trial court to consider children from subsequent marriages as a basis for disregarding the amount provided in the guidelines without any evidence before it that support of such children impaired the parent's ability to meet the amount required under the guidelines."

    We reverse the trial court's award of child support. In Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court stated that if the parties' combined income exceeds the $50,000 maximum provided under section 61.30, the trial court must nevertheless "use the maximum presumptive guidelines amount as a `floor' to the child support award." In the case at bar, the trial court's reason for not considering the maximum amount as a "floor" in its modified child support award was that the former husband had a child from a subsequent marriage following the entry of the final judgment.

  7. Durden v. Hewitt

    582 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

    Furthermore, the record does not appear to contain sufficient competent evidence to enable the trial court or master to utilize the provisions of section 61.30(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), as is required to determine the proper support in cases involving incomes in excess of the guidelines amount. See Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brandt v. Brandt, 565 So.2d 397 (Fla.2d DCA 1990); Ombres v. Ombres, 564 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in all respects except as to the amount of the award of child support and remand the cause for further consideration of the appropriate amount of child support, past and future, and the amount to be paid by each of the parents, all in accordance with the various factors reflected in recent Florida case law on the subject.

  8. Huntley v. Huntley

    578 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that spouse was entitled to an equitable share of all marital assets, including marital resources that were "dissipated by the husband's addiction"

    In determining alimony obligations, the primary criteria are the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to meet those needs. Wright v. Wright, 577 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Harrison v. Harrison, 573 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Scapin v. Scapin, 547 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Although the parties are of similar age and education, the record does not support the finding that they have similar earning capacities. The parties were married in 1979, when they were both in their early twenties.