From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooper v. Hooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 15, 1996
681 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 96-1759.

October 15, 1996.

An appeal from the Circuit Court, Gilchrist County, Maurice V. Giunta, J.

David A. Hallman, Chiefland, for Appellant

Peter Langley, III, Bronson, for Appellee.


Jack E. Hooper appeals a nonfinal order increasing the amount of temporary child support which he is required to pay and argues that the trial court failed to consider and awarded temporary support in excess of the child support guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes (1995). We have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order. See, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130 (a)(3)(C)(iii); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Although there may be evidentiary support for the trial court's decision to increase Hooper's child support obligation, we are compelled to reverse because the trial court's order does not set forth specific findings as to the parties' income, the basis for the modified support amount, or any justification for the departure from the guidelines. § 61.30 (1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also, Hardy v. Hardy, 659 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hooper v. Hooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 15, 1996
681 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Hooper v. Hooper

Case Details

Full title:JACK E. HOOPER, APPELLANT, v. LINDA SUZANNE HOOPER, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 15, 1996

Citations

681 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Scribner v. Scribner

We are unable to determine from the record how the amounts of child support and arrearage were calculated and…

Adkins v. Sotolongo

Although there may be evidentiary support below for the trial court's decision to modify the Father's child…