STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF TERESA G. SHADE, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD F. KIMMERLY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services sought child support enforcement on behalf of Teresa G. Shade against Edward F. Kimmerly through a RURESA action. The trial court refused to consider the merits of the current support claim, citing a prior Virginia court order suspending payments. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida courts have independent authority to consider current support claims in RURESA proceedings regardless of prior orders from other states.
The Florida court erred in refusing to consider the merits of the current support claim based on the prior Virginia order. Under RURESA, a responding Florida court has independent authority to direct payment of child support based on the current needs of the obligees and current abilities of the obligor, regardless of prior support orders from other states.
[1] Under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA), a Florida court has the authority to determine child support obligations based on current needs…
[2] A Florida court presiding over a RURESA action is not bound by a prior out-of-state order that conditionally suspended child support payments.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“under RURESA the Florida court was not bound by the prior order as to the claim for current support”
Establishes the court's core holding that RURESA proceedings grant Florida independent authority over current support claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKimmerly's marriage was dissolved by an Ohio court which established his child support obligation. He subsequently obtained a reduction in child suppo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a circuit court order denying a claim for current child support. The claim was made by a petition initiating in Ohio, and filed in Florida pursuant to Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). In denying the claim for current support the trial court declined to consider the merits of the claim, indicating that it was bound by a prior order of another court. We conclude that hte court erred in refusing to consider the merits of the claim on that ground, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.
Appellee’s marriage was dissolved by order of an Ohio court which also fixed appel-lee’s child support obligation. Appellee subsequently obtained a reduction in child support by order of a Virginia court which directed payment of arrearages but conditionally suspended current support payments.1 Thereafter, appellee’s former spouse petitioned in Ohio, seeking payment of both arrearages and current support. This petition was certified to Florida as a RURESA action.
The Florida court ordered payment of arrearages but declined to consider the merits of the current support claim, indicating that it was bound by the Virginia order suspending current payments. However, not only was the Virginia order merely a temporary and conditional suspension, under RURESA the Florida court was not bound by the prior order as to the claim for current support. See Koon v. Boulder County, Department of Social Services, 494 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1986). Koon establishes that despite the existence of prior support orders in other states, in a RURESA proceeding the responding Florida court has authority to direct payment of child support in accordance with the current needs of the obligees and the current abilities of the obligor. The court below thus should have considered the merits of the claim for current child support.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed insofar as it denies the claim for current support, and the cause is remanded.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . The Virginia order decreed that "during the time that [appellee] is unreasonably denied visitation, child support is suspended....” Florida courts have indicated that such a decree would be inappropriate in this state. See e.g., State v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Koon v. Boulder Cnty., 494 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)