JOSHWA BRIAN PAYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O ANNA G. GUTIERREZ, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an order awarding retroactive child support to a grandmother who obtained custody of her grandchild. The court held that retroactive support may only be awarded in the initial determination of child support, not in subsequent proceedings, and therefore reversed the retroactive support award while affirming all other aspects of the lower court's order.
The trial court abused its discretion by awarding retroactive support after the initial determination of child support. Under Florida Statute § 61.30(17), retroactive support may only be awarded in an initial determination of child support, not in subsequent proceedings. The retroactive support award was reversed while all other aspects of the order were affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by awarding retroactive child support after the initial determination of child support.
[2] A trial court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when parents did not reside together with the child, not to exceed 24 months preceding the fil…
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“In an initial determination of child support, whether in a paternity action, dissolution of marriage action, or petition for support during the marriage, the court has 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”
Establishes that retroactive support is limited by statute to 'initial determination' of child support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2002, a lower court ordered Payne to pay child support for his minor child S.L.W., including 12 months of retroactive arrears. In August 2014, afte…
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 Petition To Establish Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Joshwa Payne (“Appellant”) appeals the lower court’s order awarding retroactive child support for his minor child, S.L.W., upon petition by the Florida Department of Revenue O/B/O Anna G. Gutierrez, S.L.W.’s maternal grandmother (“Appel-lee”).
In 2002, the lower court entered an order requiring Appellant to make child support payments in S.L.W.’s favor, including retroactive support payments for the previous 12 months’ arrears. On August 18, 2014, after S.L.W. left her mother’s residence and custody to reside with Gutierrez, Appellee filed a petition to establish child support. The trial court granted the petition, awarding support and finding Appellant “responsible for retroactive child support from 08/18/2012 through 12/20/2014.”1 '■
“The standard for reviewing an award of retroactive child support is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Ditton v. Circelli, 888 So.2d 161, 162 (Fla. 6th DCA 2004) (citing Smith v. Smith, 872 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). The applicable statute provides:
In an initial determination of child support, whether in a paternity action, dissolution of marriage action, or petition for support during the marriage, the court has 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, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition. .
§ 61.30(17), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). “[W]hen the , statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 807 (Fla.2008) (quoting Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006)). Thus, based on the plain- language of the statute, a trial court may award retroactive support only in the first determination of child support concerning a particular child. In this case, the trial court abused its discretion by awarding retroactive support after the initial determination of child support. See § 61.30(17), Fla. Stat.; Ditton, 888 So.2d at 162. Accordingly, we reverse with regard to only the order’s awárd of retroactive support and affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. ’
SAWAYA -and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chasey C. Bass v. Kaylee M. Lefebvre (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)
- Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2008)
- Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Ditton v. Circelli, 888 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)