Benjamin Buchanan, Father v. Kristin Buchanan, Mother
225 So. 3d 1002
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Husband and Wife are parties to a pending dissolution; Husband appealed the trial court’s temporary support order.
- Trial court ordered Husband to continue paying mortgage, utilities, auto insurance, a car payment, and loan payments on recreational vehicles, and to pay $250/week child support.
- Trial court also ordered Husband’s partner company (an LLC not joined as a party) to continue paying Wife a weekly stipend of $135.64; Wife admitted she did not work for the company.
- The trial court made no specific factual findings on Husband’s ability to pay or the exact amounts of the expenses; financial affidavits and testimony conflicted about Husband’s income and expense figures.
- Appellate court reviewed whether temporary support awards were supported by competent, substantial evidence and whether the trial court could order a non-party company to pay Wife.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s temporary support award is supported by findings of need and ability to pay | Wife argued she needs continued payment of household expenses and stipend; trial court’s order should stand | Husband argued award may exceed his ability to pay; court lacked sufficient findings and record conflicted | Remanded: trial court must make specific factual findings on Wife’s need, Husband’s ability to pay, and factors under §61.08 before awarding temporary support |
| Whether trial court can order Husband’s company to continue paying Wife a stipend | Wife relied on existing stipend payments and asked for continuation | Husband argued the company wasn’t a party and trial court lacked power to bind it to pay | Reversed: trial court erred; cannot order a non-party LLC to pay Wife’s stipend without joinder |
Key Cases Cited
- de Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 19 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (temporary support requires evidence of need and ability to pay)
- Driscoll v. Driscoll, 915 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (scope of trial court discretion in temporary awards)
- Hotaling v. Hotaling, 962 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (award exceeding ability to pay is an abuse of discretion)
- Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (appellate review may not require written statutory findings when record supports basis)
- Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (trial court cannot transfer corporate assets without joinder)
- Minsky v. Minsky, 779 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (dissolution court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate nonparty property rights)
- Mathes v. Mathes, 91 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (distinguishing distribution of a spouse’s interest from company assets)
- Ehman v. Ehman, 156 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (error to award property owned by nonparty LLC)