HEATHER SEITH v. RICHARD SEITH
21-0556
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Mar 2, 2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2013; final judgment awarded primary timesharing to mother. Original plan gave father 144 overnights and mother 221 overnights per year.
- Both were ophthalmologists; several years after divorce mother’s employment contract ended and she accepted a Fort Lauderdale job, relocating to Lake Worth (~46 miles) and notifying father only after the move.
- Father petitioned to modify timesharing because the relocation disrupted his schedule; he purchased a Lake Worth condominium to reduce driving for visitation. Mother filed a counterpetition to modify child support.
- Trial court found the relocation was an unanticipated, substantial, material change that impeded the parenting plan and modified the summer timesharing (net gain of six overnights to father), and also increased child support.
- The judgment misstated overnight counts (used 162/203 and 180/185 instead of 144/221 and the correct post-modification counts), failed to enter a mandatory income deduction order, and set collateral expense ratios at 50/50 though the attached guidelines sheet showed 66.88% father / 33.12% mother.
- Appeal: Fourth District affirmed the timesharing modification but reversed and remanded the child support portions for (1) corrected overnight calculation, (2) entry of an income deduction order, and (3) proper or explained collateral-expense allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Heather's Argument | Richard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion modifying parenting/timesharing after mother’s relocation | Relocation alone insufficient; modification not warranted | Relocation disrupted schedule and child’s routine; modest summer adjustment needed | Affirmed — competent substantial evidence supported finding of unanticipated, substantial, material change and best interest adjustment (modest summer change) |
| Whether court used correct overnight counts for child support calculation | Court misstated original and new overnight counts; support must be recalculated using correct numbers | Father did not dispute the mother’s calculation that modification added six overnights | Reversed as to support — court must recalculate child support with correct overnight counts |
| Whether court was required to enter an income deduction order for child support | Court should have entered mandatory income deduction order; judgment ordering direct payments was error | No persuasive defense to statutory mandate | Reversed as to support — statute requires entry of an income deduction order for non-temporary child support orders |
| Whether trial court properly allocated collateral child expenses (guideline ratios) | Court erred by declaring 50/50 without rationale when guidelines showed 66.88/33.12 | Father contends 50/50 tracks original judgment, but original was internally inconsistent | Reversed as to ratios — trial court must either adopt guideline percentages or provide a logical rationale for departing from them |
Key Cases Cited
- Schot v. Schot, 273 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (standard of review for parenting-plan modification)
- Hollis v. Hollis, 276 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (relocation alone not always a substantial change; need explanation)
- Halbert v. Morico, 27 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (relocation and custody modification analysis)
- Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (relocation may be restricted when it interferes with parenting plan)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 313 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (need correct overnight counts for guideline calculations)
- Julia v. Julia, 263 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (collateral expenses must follow child support allocation unless court explains departure)
- Dorsett v. Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (statutory mandate to enter income deduction order for child support)
- McKinnon v. Staats, 899 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (competent substantial evidence standard)