JAC A. ROTH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SUSAN J. ROTH, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's child support amount but reversed on two issues: the improper allocation methodology for child support reductions and the failure to preserve the former wife's right to collect temporary support arrearages accumulated before the final judgment.
The trial court erred in allocating one-half of each support payment to each child, as the child support guidelines require reduction calculations based on the guideline amount for the remaining minor child. Additionally, the trial court erred by failing to include language in the final judgment explicitly requiring payment of the accumulated temporary support arrearage, despite acknowledging the outstanding obligation.
[1] Child support guidelines do not require allocation of support payments to individual children; any reduction in support upon a child reaching majority should be calculate…
[2] A final judgment of dissolution must contain specific language ordering the payment of temporary support arrearages to preserve the right to collect such arrearages.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“any reduction in child support that will take effect when the first child is no longer eligible for such support should be calculated based on the child support guideline amount for the remaining minor child”
Establishes the proper methodology for calculating child support reductions under Florida guidelines, rejecting the trial court's equal allocation approach.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former husband and former wife litigated their dissolution of marriage. The trial court ordered child support but allocated one-half of each support…
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
The former husband appeals, and the former wife cross-appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We find no abuse of discretion -with regard to the three points the former husband raises on appeal. However, we do find that the former wife has raised two points in her cross-appeal which warrant reversal. First, the former wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to properly apply the child support guidelines in determining the award of child support. Although we find no error as to the amount of child support the trial court ordered, we do find that the trial court erred by allocating one-half of each support payment to each child. The child support guidelines require no such allocation. Rather, any reduction in child support that will take effect when the first child is no longer eligible for such support should be calculated based on the child support guideline amount for the remaining minor child. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to correct the final judgment as to the sentence making this allocation.
In the second point warranting reversal, the former wife contends that the final judgment does not preserve her right to the temporary support arrearage that the former husband had accumulated at the time of the final hearing. We agree, since even though the final judgment acknowledges the outstanding obligation and in no way specifically abolishes it, there is no language in the final judgment requiring the payment of the outstanding obligation. Thus, we reverse with directions to the trial court to amend the final judgment to order the former husband to pay the arrearage.
In all other respects we affirm.
DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ncing it. Once a final judgment of dissolution is rendered, the final judgment supersedes any prior temporary orders., Bell v. Bell, 664 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Sims v. Sims, 846 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Roth v. Roth, 658 So. 2d 1225, 1226. (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In this' case, it appears any defect, if there is one, is purely a scrivener’s error. The trial court clearly referenced the provisions of the temporary order and intended to incorporate them into the final judgment. Upo…
-
Sims v. Sims, 846 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…d 1124, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). If provision for payment of a temporary support arrearage is not incor [*1189] porated in the final judgment, we have held that the court may not enforce such an arrearage in post-judgment proceedings. Roth v. Roth, 658 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (final judgment in dissolution of marriage proceeding failed to preserve wife’s right to temporary support arrearage that husband had accumulated at time of final hearing, warranting reversal; even though final judgment ack…
-
Giacomaro v. Brossia (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)