Court Opinion

ID: 9395246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 16:04:00.454466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:06.613852
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                            FOURTH DISTRICT

                         FEDLINE INNOCENT,
                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                           RICO INNOCENT,
                              Appellee.

                             No. 4D22-985

                             [May 17, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Natasha DePrimo, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE20-
003041.

   Susan R. Brown of Susan R. Brown, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.

   No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   The Former Wife appeals an order dissolving her marriage with the
Former Husband, distributing their assets, and establishing a parenting
plan and child support for their two minor children. We address four
issues below, reverse the final judgment of dissolution, and remand for
further proceedings.

 i. The Finding that the Former Wife Dissipated Assets is Reversed and
                   Remanded for Further Proceedings

   The Former Wife first argues the circuit court erred in granting the
Former Husband $30,000 based on the Former Wife’s dissipation of
assets. The final judgment states that “Father’s request for $30,000 from
Mother due to her dissipation of marital assets is granted.” The final
judgment does not specify which assets were dissipated, nor does it find
whether the dissipated assets were marital or non-marital.

   Furthermore, this finding in the final judgment potentially conflicts
with the circuit court’s oral finding that the Former Wife owed the Former
Husband $30,000 for both his share of the parties’ marital home and the
personal assets in it when the home was sold. The dissipation of assets
was also an issue outside the pleadings and outside the scope of a referral
to the magistrate judge who decided the issue.

   We therefore reverse the court’s finding that the Former Wife dissipated
assets. But we do so without prejudice to allow the parties to properly
address the issue on remand. If the Former Husband proves that assets
were dissipated, then the circuit court must make the required findings.
Welton v. Welton, 267 So. 3d 6, 8-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Roth v. Roth, 973
So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Because we reverse the finding
requiring the Former Wife to pay the Former Husband $30,000, we also
reverse the circuit court’s contempt order enforcing the obligation.

       ii. The Circuit Court Must Determine Whether the Child Needs
                          Retroactive Child Support

   In her Amended Petition for Dissolution, the Former Wife “request[ed]
temporary child support pending the resolution of this case” and asked
the court to “determine the amount of child support both temporary and
permanent to be paid by the [Former] Husband as per Florida Statutes, as
well as any arrears from the date of filing of the initial Petition.” The circuit
court did not enter a temporary support order or address whether the child
required temporary support. On remand, the circuit court should address
the child’s need for temporary support.

    iii. The Final Judgment Must Include Child Support Guidelines and
                    Make Findings on Both Parties Income

   Next, the Former Wife argues that the circuit court erred when it did
not include child support guidelines or make findings on both parties’
income. We agree.

   The Former Husband filed a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet on
the day of the hearing. The hearing transcript reveals the circuit court
adjusted the child support calculation based on rulings at the hearing.
But an updated worksheet reflecting these changes does not appear in the
record, the Magistrate’s Report, or the Final Judgment. The updated
worksheet must be included. Dorvilien v. Verty, 335 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla.
4th DCA 2022).

   Similarly, “[i]n conformance with section 61.30, the case law is ‘well-
settled that a trial court errs by failing to make findings of fact regarding
the parties’ incomes when determining child support.’” J.A.D. v. K.M.A.,

                                       2
264 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting M.M. v. J.H., 251 So.
3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)).

  On remand, the circuit court must include the child support guideline
worksheet and make findings on both parties’ income.

      iv. Any Relocation Order Must Comply With Section 61.13001

   Finally, the Former Wife argues the circuit court erred when it allowed
the Former Husband to exercise timesharing in Georgia. She argues that
section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2021), required the Former Husband
to file a pleading seeking permission to relocate the children to Georgia.
Because the Former Husband failed to request relocation in a pleading, we
agree and reverse. See § 61.13001, Fla. Stat. (2021). On remand, the
circuit court may issue an order allowing relocation if the order complies
with section 61.13001.

                                Conclusion

    We reverse the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

   Reversed and remanded.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                           *          *       *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      3