2D04-1288 / Long v. Long

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D04-1288

Case Date: 06/08/2005

Plaintiff: 2D04-1288 / Long

Defendant: Long

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
LEONARD LONG,                                                                              )
)
Appellant,                                                                                 )
)
v.                                                                                         )   Case No.   2D04-1288
)
ROBIN LONG,                                                                                )
)
Appellee.                                                                                  )
)
Opinion filed June 8, 2005.
Appeal from nonfinal order of the
Circuit Court for Pinellas County;
Amy M. Williams, Judge.
Jack F. White, III, Clearwater,
for Appellant.
J. Stanford Lifsey, P.A., Tampa,
for Appellee.
KELLY, Judge.
Leonard Long (the husband) appeals from the order requiring him to pay
temporary child support.   He argues that the trial court erred in proceeding with the
temporary support hearing and determining his support obligations without sufficient
evidence of the parties’ current financial status and without a child support guidelines
worksheet.   We agree and reverse.

We direct that on remand the trial court determine the parties’ current
financial situation and recalculate their child support obligations on a worksheet using
current financial information and applying the child support guidelines.   See Durham v.
Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Durham, 850 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that it
was error for the trial court to decide the issue of child support without a child support
guidelines worksheet).   We also note that the income deduction order must direct
payments to Pinellas County, rather than to Hillsborough County, as was previously
done in this case.   Based on our holding, we need not address the husband’s remaining
arguments on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
-2-

Download 2D04-1288.pdf