LISA BELL v. ZACHARY BROCH
16-3563
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Parties married in 2001; two children. Wife (Bell) pro se on appeal; husband (Broch) represented.
- Parties entered a Partial Mediated Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) resolving most issues but reserving child support, timesharing, and parenting plan.
- MSA stipulated husband’s gross income for support at $22,805/month and that the wife’s income would be imputed at $0 until Sept. 1, 2018, then $27,500/year thereafter; wife’s financial affidavit showed no income and 15 years as a homemaker.
- Trial court adopted and incorporated the MSA into the dissolution order, awarded husband 100% timesharing, but initially did not decide child support; wife filed a notice of appeal.
- After the appeal was filed, the trial court entered an amended final judgment ordering the wife to pay $1,941/month in child support; wife challenged that award on appeal as conflicting with the MSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bell) | Defendant's Argument (Broch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review child support entered after notice of appeal | Appeal was timely over the dissolution judgment adopting MSA; child support error is reviewable | Trial court order was entered after notice of appeal so appellate court lacks jurisdiction | Court held jurisdiction vested when amended final judgment resolved child support because the earlier dissolution order was not final (reserved child support); issue is properly before the court |
| Whether the amended child support award conflicts with the MSA | Amended judgment is facially inconsistent because MSA imputes wife income at zero (until 2018) but worksheet used $7,302 net monthly for wife | Court implicitly relied on worksheet figures to calculate $1,941 monthly award | Court held the child support award was erroneous on its face because it conflicted with the MSA; reversed and remanded to resolve conflict and recalculate support |
| Whether an appellate reversal is appropriate despite an incomplete record | Error was apparent on the face of the judgment and therefore correctable on appeal | Trial court may argue missing record items prevent review | Court applied precedent permitting reversal when error is plain on the judgment despite an inadequate record and reversed child support award |
| Whether MSA income stipulations bind the court on support calculation | MSA income stipulations are binding on parties and court absent best-interest concern for children | Husband may argue court retains discretion to revisit income for support | Court held MSA became binding when incorporated into judgment; support must align with MSA unless court properly revisits best interests; here conflict required recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (order dissolving marriage reserving child support is not final)
- Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (appellate correction permitted where error appears on face of judgment)
- Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (may reverse despite inadequate record when judgment is fundamentally erroneous on its face)
- McCants-Collie v. Collie, 909 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversal for error apparent on face of record in child support calculation)
- Chovan v. Chovan, 90 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (marital settlement agreement as to child support is binding subject to court review for children’s best interests)
- Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (MSA on child support is binding on parties and court)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (pretrial stipulation of parties’ incomes is binding)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 860 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversed where final judgment disregarded settlement agreement on child support)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of child support to conform with the MSA and resolve the conflict.