A recent Florida appellate case, Garwood v. Garwood, provides a stark warning about the complexities of child support calculations and the critical rules of an appeal. In its 2025 decision, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court judgment that contained significant mathematical errors—one of which resulted in a father being ordered to pay child support that consumed nearly 99% of his monthly net income.
The appellate court was faced with two major questions. First, could it review the case at all, given that the appealing party had failed to provide the official trial transcript? Second, were the trial court’s calculations legally correct? The court ultimately affirmed all of the trial judge’s factual findings because the transcript was missing. However, it reversed the child support calculations, finding that the mathematical and logical errors were so obvious on the “face of the judgment” that a transcript was not needed to correct them. This case serves as a crucial lesson for litigants in Tampa on the difference between a factual error and a computational error, and the severe consequences of both.
The Intricate World of Child Support Modification
In Florida, a child support order is not necessarily permanent. The law recognizes that lives change, and a parent’s financial situation can shift dramatically in the years after a divorce. When this happens, either party may file a “Supplemental Petition to Modify Child Support.” However, a party cannot seek a modification simply because they are unhappy with the amount.
To succeed, the petitioning party must prove that there has been a “substantial, material, and permanent change in circumstances” since the last order was entered. Common reasons for a modification include:
- A parent’s involuntary job loss.
- A significant promotion or pay increase for either parent.
- A change in the child’s needs, such as a new, costly medical diagnosis.
- A change in the timesharing schedule, such as one parent moving away or the child beginning to spend significantly more time with the other parent.
In the Garwood case, the parties had a long and contentious history. After their 2015 divorce, the child support had already been modified once in 2018. In 2020, the Former Husband filed another petition to modify, this time alleging his net income had decreased and requesting a reduction in his support payments. This petition is what triggered the new trial and the subsequent judgment that was appealed.
This process is highly technical. It requires a new, complete financial disclosure from both parties and a careful recalculation based on current incomes and expenses. A misstep in this phase can have long-lasting financial consequences. This is why many individuals involved in such disputes seek the guidance of a Tampa divorce lawyer to ensure their financial information is presented accurately and the guidelines are applied correctly.
The First Pitfall: Retroactive Child Support
When a court grants a modification, it has the discretion to make the new amount “retroactive.” Typically, the new amount becomes effective from the date the supplemental petition was first filed. In Garwood, this created an immediate and complex accounting problem.
The Former Husband filed his petition in June 2020, but the trial did not occur until December 2022. This left a two-and-a-half-year gap that the court had to recalculate. This is not as simple as taking the new amount and applying it backward. The trial court found that the parents’ incomes had changed several times within that 2.5-year period.
To handle this, the trial court correctly broke down the 2.5-year retroactive period into four smaller, distinct time periods, each based on when one or both of the parents’ incomes had changed. The court then had to run four separate child support guidelines calculations.
This is a meticulous, evidence-heavy process. It requires proof of income for both parties over several years. Without a comprehensive presentation of pay stubs, tax returns, and other financial data, the court is left to guess, which can lead to errors. A Tampa divorce lawyer plays a critical role in gathering and organizing this historical financial data to present a clear, period-by-period calculation to the court.
The Core of the Appeal: A Devastating Mathematical Error
While the trial court’s method of breaking the retroactive period into four parts was correct, its math was not. This is where the case took a bizarre turn.
Florida’s child support guidelines are based on an “income shares model.” The formula first determines the minimumsupport obligation for each parent based on their net income and the number of children. In a typical case where one parent has the majority of timesharing, the non-majority parent (the “payor”) pays their minimum obligation to the other parent.
In the Garwood case, during the first two retroactive periods, the Former Wife (the primary residential parent) earned substantially more net income than the Former Husband.
Here is an example from the case for one of the time periods:
- Former Husband’s Minimum Obligation: Calculated as $344.43 per month.
- Former Wife’s Minimum Obligation: Calculated as $1,665.57 per month.
- Former Husband’s Net Income: $1,329.76 per month.
The legally correct child support order would have been for the Former Husband to pay his minimum obligation of $344.43 per month.
Instead, the trial court took an extra, impermissible step. It subtracted the Former Husband’s obligation from the Former Wife’s obligation ($1,665.57 – $344.43) and ordered the Former Husband to pay the difference, which was $1,321.14 per month.
The appellate court noted the absurdity of this result. The trial court ordered the Former Husband to pay $1,321.14 per month in child support at a time when his net income was only $1,329.76. This left him with approximately $8 per month to live on. This was a clear, fundamental, and financially ruinous misapplication of the law. This error was not in calculating the incomes (a factual issue) but in performing the formula (a legal and mathematical issue).
The Second Mistake: Compounding Errors in Arrears
The trial court’s mathematical errors did not stop with the retroactive support. The court also had to calculate the Former Husband’s total child support arrearages, dating back to the 2015 divorce.
In May 2020 (just before the Former Husband filed his new petition), the court had already held him in contempt and calculated his exact arrears as of that date. This May 2020 calculation should have been the starting point for the new arrears calculation.
Instead, the trial court inexplicably used a later clerk’s affidavit from January 2022 as its starting point. This created two massive problems:
- Double-Counting: The court’s new retroactive calculation already covered the period from June 2020 to December 2022. By using the January 2022 affidavit, the court double-counted the 1.5-year period from June 2020 to January 2022. The Former Husband was ordered to pay arrears on this period twice.
- Wrongful Amount: The January 2022 affidavit was based on the old, higher 2018 child support amount. The court had just determined in its new judgment that the Former Husband should have been paying a lower amount during that time. By using the affidavit, the court forced the Husband to pay arrears at a higher rate that its own judgment had just rendered obsolete.
This kind of compounding error highlights the vital need for a Tampa divorce lawyer to act as a meticulous auditor in child support proceedings. The court must be presented with a clear, linear accounting that shows a starting balance, all payments made, all new obligations incurred, and a final, verifiable balance.
The Appeal: “Facial Error” vs. “Factual Error”
When the Former Husband appealed these obvious errors, the Former Wife’s primary defense was that the appeal should be dismissed. Why? Because the Former Husband had failed to provide the appellate court with the trial transcript.
This brings up one of the most important and least understood rules of family law appeals. As we saw in the Perez-Palmacase, an appellate court must presume the trial court’s factual findings are correct if it is not provided with a transcript. This is known as the Applegate rule. The “record” of the trial (the transcript) is the only thing that can overcome this presumption.
The Garwood court agreed with this rule. It affirmed all of the trial court’s factual findings—such as the specific net income amounts it assigned to each parent for the four retroactive periods. Because there was no transcript, the appellate court had no choice but to assume the judge listened to the evidence and made the correct factual determinations.
However, the appellate court drew a critical distinction. The Former Husband was not appealing the factual findings (the income numbers). He was appealing the mathematical calculations that the judge performed after finding those facts.
The appellate court held that a transcript is not required to correct a mathematical or logical error that is “apparent on the face” of the final judgment. The trial court’s 50-page order showed its own work. That work—subtracting one support obligation from the other instead of just ordering the payor’s minimum—was a legal and mathematical error. The judgment itself was all the evidence the appellate court needed to see the mistake.
This is a rare but crucial exception to the transcript rule. A party cannot appeal a judge’s decision on who to believe or what a person’s income is without a transcript. But a party can appeal a judge’s faulty math if the judgment itself clearly shows the miscalculation.
The Final Lesson: Preserving Your Right to Appeal
There was one last procedural issue. The Former Wife argued the Former Husband had not “preserved” the issue for appeal. In Florida family law, this is another trap for unwary litigants. If a judge makes a mistake in a final judgment (like a calculation error or forgetting to make a required finding), the law requires the aggrieved party to first give the trial judge a chance to fix it.
This is done by filing a “Motion for Rehearing” within 15 days of the judgment. If a party fails to file this motion, they often waive their right to complain about the error on appeal.
In this case, the Former Husband’s attorney had filed a motion for rehearing, specifically challenging the arrearages calculations. The appellate court found that this was sufficient to preserve the issue for its review. This step was just as important as the appeal itself. Had this motion not been filed, the appeal on the math errors might have failed, and the Former Husband would have been stuck with a financially impossible judgment.
The Garwood case is a powerful illustration of the technical dangers of family law. It shows that even a 50-page, comprehensive judgment from a trial judge can contain fundamental, life-altering errors. It reinforces that child support calculations, especially retroactive ones, are extraordinarily complex.
Whether you are seeking a modification or defending against one, the process requires a deep understanding of the statutory formula, meticulous accounting, and a rigid adherence to procedural rules like preservation. A miscalculation or a missed deadline can have financially devastating consequences. This is why the advocacy of a qualified Tampa divorce lawyer is not a luxury, but a necessity to protect one’s financial future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a motion to modify child support? It is a formal request (a “Supplemental Petition”) filed with the court asking to change an existing child support order. The person filing must prove that a “substantial, material, and permanent” change in circumstances has occurred since the last order.
What is retroactive child support? When a court modifies child support, it can make the new amount effective as of the date the petition was first filed, not just from the date the order is signed. This can create a large, lump-sum retroactive payment or credit.
What is an “error apparent on the face of the judgment”? This is a mistake that is obvious just by reading the final judgment, without needing to review trial testimony. In the Garwood case, the court’s incorrect math (subtracting one support obligation from another) was a “facial error” that could be corrected on appeal even without a trial transcript.
Why do I need a trial transcript for an appeal? A trial transcript is the official, word-for-word record of your trial. If you want to appeal a judge’s factual finding (like what your income is, or that your spouse is a better parent), you mustprovide the transcript to prove the judge’s decision was not supported by the evidence.
What is the Applegate rule? This is the rule that states if an appellant fails to provide a trial transcript, the appellate court must presume the trial judge’s factual findings were correct. This is what happened in Garwood—all factual findings were affirmed.
What is a motion for rehearing in a Florida family law case? It is a motion filed within 15 days of a final judgment, asking the trial judge to reconsider its ruling. It is legally required to “preserve” many types of errors for appeal, giving the trial judge a chance to correct their own mistake before a higher court gets involved.