Case Name: Ira Glynn HARDY, Appellant, v. Loretta Vesta (Powell) HARDY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-08-28
Citations: 659 So. 2d 1246
Docket Number: No. 93-4052
Parties: Ira Glynn HARDY, Appellant, v. Loretta Vesta (Powell) HARDY, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 659
Pages: 1246–1248

Head Matter:
Ira Glynn HARDY, Appellant, v. Loretta Vesta (Powell) HARDY, Appellee.
No. 93-4052.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 28, 1995.
Anthony L. Bajoczky of Bajoczky & Four-nier, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Warren J. Bird, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges an award of child support ordered in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the child support obligation. We therefore reverse and remand.
The parties entered a mediated property settlement agreement which determined all issues except child support. The parties agreed to "equally share parental responsibility and residence/custody" of the two minor children and specified when the children would be with which parent. The agreement provided that
[cjhild support in this case should be in the amount determined by application of the Florida Child Support Guidelines to the stipulated incomes of the Parties . being sure to keep in mind that the Parties are equally sharing the parental responsibility and residence/custody of the minor children as set forth in the Mediated Property Settlement.
At the final hearing, both parties presented child support guidelines calculations based on the formula specified in section 61.30, Florida Statutes. The parties differed, however, in their determination of the amount of child support owed by the father in light of the equal parenting arrangement.
The child support guidelines statute contains a specific formula for determining the statutory minimum child support amount. § 61.30(2) — (6), Fla.Stat. (1993). A trial court is granted the discretion to adjust this presumptive minimum child support award based on considerations listed in the statute. § 61.30(11), Fla.Stat. One basis for adjustment, which is applicable in the instant case, is "[t]he particular shared parental arrangement, such as where the children spend a substantial amount of their time with the secondary residential parent thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the primary residential parent_" § 61.30(11)(g), Fla.Stat.
In the instant case, the court was presented with "almost identical" calculations of the presumptive minimum child support amount and each parent's percentage of obligation for that amount. There is no record evidence, however, that the court accepted either calculation as the presumptively correct amount, and the court made no findings on the record or in writing explaining its departure from the guideline amounts indicated by the parties' calculations. If the court orders a child support amount that varies more than 5 percent from the presumptive guideline amount, the court must make a specific finding either in writing or on the record "explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate." § 61.30(1)(a), Fla.Stat. Failure to make these findings is reversible error. Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversible error to depart from the statutory minimum child support guidelines without stating findings and reasons for the departure.).
Instead of beginning with the guideline amount and adjusting it accordingly, the trial court expressed an intent to equalize the net incomes of the parents so that equal incomes would be available to each household for the support of the children. Looking only at the parties' net incomes, the court ordered the father to pay $400/month in child support to equalize the parties' incomes. The court thus created a new formula for determining child support based on equalizing the incomes of the parties. This the court is not permitted to do. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Svs. v. Massey, 568 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (a trial court must apply the section 61.30 formula and not substitute its own formula).
Because the record does not indicate that the presumptive guideline amount was used in determining the child support award and it appeal's that the court used its own formula to determine the award, we reverse and remand for redetermination of the child support award in conformity with the statutory requirements.
ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.
WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.