Court Opinion

ID: 9955128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:03:37.789514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.510413
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2022-2040
                 _____________________________

JOSHUA A. KNIGHT,

    Appellant,

    v.

ADRIAN E.H. KNIGHT,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.
Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

                         March 27, 2024

TANENBAUM, J.

     We reject almost all the former husband’s assertions of error
on appeal. True, the final dissolution judgment does not perfectly
meet the parameters set out in part one of chapter 61 of the Florida
Statutes. The trial court, however, did make oral findings on the
record at the final hearing to support its decisions regarding
relocation, alimony, and timesharing. Those findings had
sufficient support in the evidence presented to the court.

    As to the amount and duration of alimony for the former wife,
the trial court had testimony and affidavits from both parties
regarding their respective work and financial situations. The court
made an oral finding of the former wife’s need (and implicitly, the
former husband’s ability to pay). The former husband
acknowledges in his brief that the affidavits are not in the record
on appeal, but he offers no good reason why not. See Fla. R. App.
P. 9.200(a)(1) (defining the record as consisting of “all documents
filed in the lower tribunal, all exhibits that are not physical
evidence, and any transcript(s) of proceedings filed in the lower
tribunal” (emphasis supplied)). He bore the burden of perfecting
the record to support his arguments on reversal. Cf. Applegate v.
Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)
(“The trial court should have been affirmed because the record
brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate
reversible error.”). Overall, the dissolution judgment appears to be
a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion in chancery under
the circumstances of this case and how it was litigated.

     We cannot, however, affirm in total. While the former
husband does not contest the amount of child support or how it was
calculated, he does contest the start date for the monthly
payments. The trial court allowed the children to relocate to
another state with the former wife, but it also ordered that the
oldest child be allowed to remain with the former husband and
complete the school year in Florida, which ended on May 26, 2022.
The trial court nevertheless set April 1, 2022, as the start date for
his child support payments.

     The former husband contends that the child-support
calculation should reflect this period that the child resided with
him. He raised this issue in a motion for rehearing, but the trial
court denied the motion without explanation. Because the trial
court did not make any findings or include a child-support
worksheet with the dissolution judgment, we have no way to assess
whether the trial court considered whether that period qualified
as a “deviation factor” or other basis for an adjustment under
section 61.30(11), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we vacate
paragraph seven of the dissolution judgment (setting the child-
support award) and instruct the trial court to make findings that
demonstrate the extent to which the period of the older child’s
residence with the former husband between April 1 and May 26,
2022, was taken into account.

    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

ROWE and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

                                 2
                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Mark D. Davis of Clark Partington, Santa Rosa Beach, for the
appellant.

No appearance for the appellee.

                                  3