Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SEAN P. McGILL, Appellant, v. AMBER P. McGILL, Appellee. No. 2D22-443 February 10, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Kevin R. Bruning, Judge. Wyndel G. Darville, Sarasota, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee. SILBERMAN, Judge. Sean P. McGill (the Former Husband) appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that awards retroactive child support to Amber P. McGill (the Former Wife). The trial court made an error of law on the face of the judgment because the court did not make any findings as to the parties' incomes when it ordered the retroactive child support of $47,095.87. Thus, we reverse the judgment only as to the retroactive child support award and remand for the trial court to make the required findings for such award. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment. At the time the trial court entered the judgment and awarded retroactive support, this court did not require a motion for rehearing to preserve for review the trial court's failure to make statutorily required factual findings in family law proceedings. See Engle v. Engle, 277 So. 3d 697, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[W]e hold that the trial court's failure to make specific factual findings that are required by statute as set forth in chapter 61 is reversible error regardless of whether the error was first raised in the trial court by means of a motion for rehearing."); see also Samaniego v. Samaniego, 325 So. 3d 282, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (quoting Engle). Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530(a) to add the following sentence: "To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court's findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule." In Re: Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530, 346 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2022). Because the amendment was not effective until August 25, 2022, see id. at 1161-62, a motion for rehearing was not required to preserve for review the issue of the lack of findings in the judgment rendered on January 13, 2022. Without a transcript of the final hearing or a statement of evidence, we limit our review to errors on the face of the judgment. Quinn v. Quinn, 169 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2021), provides guidelines for the award of child support and retroactive child support. The guideline amount is based on the parties' net incomes, § 61.30(6), and "presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact shall order as child support" whether in an initial or a modification proceeding, 2 § 61.30(1)(a). Section 61.30(1)(a) provides for variations in the guideline amount after the trial court considers relevant factors which include "the financial status and ability of each parent." In an initial determination of child support, it is within the trial court's "discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with the child, not to exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition." § 61.30(17). Factual findings on the income of the parties "are necessary for a determination of whether the support ordered departed from the guidelines and, if so, whether that departure was justified." M.M. v. J.H., 251 So. 3d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Wilcox v. Munoz, 35 So. 3d 136, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). "A trial court's failure to include factual findings regarding the parties' incomes for purposes of child support calculations renders a final judgment facially erroneous." Id. (reversing child support and retroactive child support awards when the order did not include any "findings as to the Mother's income or ability to pay" and a child support guidelines worksheet was not attached to the order); see also Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing child support award in final judgment as "facially erroneous" because the trial court "d[id] not make any findings as to the net income of each party as a starting point for calculating child support or explaining how the calculation was performed"). In the final judgment here, the trial court did not make any factual findings on the parties' incomes and did not explain how it reached the amount of $47,095.87 for retroactive child support. The trial court also did not attach any child support guidelines worksheets to its judgment. Based on the lack of findings, we reverse the judgment only to the extent that the trial court awarded retroactive child support; otherwise, 3 we affirm the judgment. On remand, the trial court must make the required findings. In addition, the trial court must attach the child support guidelines worksheets to its judgment. See M.M., 251 So. 3d at 972; Dep't of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J., 165 So. 3d 846, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LUCAS and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 4