GENA W. KIRBY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MCKINLEY KIRBY, 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.
In this child support arrearages case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's decision to discharge $3,300 in accumulated child support arrearages when the mother willfully violated visitation orders. The court held that visitation rights may properly be considered in post-decretal child custody and support proceedings, even in the context of URESA enforcement actions.
The court held that visitation rights are properly considered in post-decretal child custody and support proceedings in dissolution actions, and that a trial court may discharge past-due child support as an extraordinary remedy when the custodial parent willfully refuses to comply with visitation orders.
[1] A trial court may discharge past due child support arrearages when a custodial parent willfully refuses to comply with visitation orders, particularly when URESA and diss…
[2] The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) remedies are in addition to, and independent of, remedies available under other applicable laws.
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“Were this a pure URESA action we would be inclined to agree with appellant's position. However, visitation rights are properly considered in a post-decretal child custody and support proceeding in conjunction with dissolution of marriage.”
Establishes the distinction between pure URESA actions and consolidated dissolution proceedings, allowing visitation considerations in the latter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties separated in 1975 while North Carolina residents. The North Carolina Superior Court awarded Gena Kirby child support for their three child…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
In this action for past due child support payments, plaintiff Gena Kirby, appellant herein, challenges an order denying her a judgment for arrearages based on her failure to comply with visitation orders.
The parties separated in 1975 while both were North Carolina residents. By order of May 1, 1975, the North Carolina Superior Court awarded appellant support for the parties’ three minor children then in her custody. Thereafter, appellee moved to Florida.
On October 29, 1975, the North Carolina court entered judgment for monies past due on the previous order. In February, 1976, appellant successfully registered the two foreign support orders in the Dade County Circuit Court under section 88.351 of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).
On June 21,1977, a final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered in the circuit court and all proceedings on any orders or judgments previously entered by the court were stayed pending a hearing. The dissolution decree ordered appellee to pay child support in the amount of $100 per month. A succession of motions have been filed by the parties in the past few years, culminating in the order which is the subject of this appeal.
On November 20, 1980, the circuit court directed appellee to pay appellant $475 per month for child support, and discharged arrearages accumulated prior to September 1, 1980 in the sum of $3,300 because appellee was denied visitation with the children.
Appellant contends1 that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the arrearages, arguing that enforcement proceedings for support under URESA may not adjudicate visitation rights or other issues. Citing Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), appellant argues that the only matter susceptible of adjudication in a URESA action is the duty of support. Were this a pure URESA action we would be inclined to agree with appellant’s position. However, visitation rights are properly considered in a post-decretal child custody and support proceeding in conjunction with dissolution of marriage.2 Ray v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
In the instant case, the URESA and dissolution actions have been consolidated to avoid any variance in orders entered, and to effectuate the purposes of both Chapter 61 and Chapter 88. See Ray v. Pentlicki, supra. The remedies provided by the URESA statute are in addition to and entirely separate from and independent of any remedies existing under other applicable provisions of law. § 88.012, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Thus, the trial judge simply exercised the full range of authority available to him in determining the relative rights and obligations of the parties. The court’s finding, moreover, that appellant wilfully refused to comply with its order directing her to allow the children to visit with their father (which finding is amply supported by the record), is an extraordinary circumstance justifying the discharge of the past due amounts. Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Panganiban v. Panganiban, 396 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
We conclude that the trial court acted within its continuing power to modify the final judgment of dissolution in dismissing the arrearages as a result of appellant’s willful refusal to comply with visitation orders. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Both parties have represented themselves on this appeal.
. A circuit court has continuing jurisdiction under § 61.13, Florida Statutes (1979), to modify an award of child support in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…hts. See, e.g., Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Cf. Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. dism’d 412 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1982) (trial court could condition child support payments on enforcement of visitation rights where court was proceeding not only under URESA but also was proceeding in conjunction with dissolution…1 / 2
-
Koon v. Boulder Cnty., 494 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1986)…ed expeditiously and with a minimum of expense to the obligee. Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla.1957). Its remedies are in addition to and not in substitution of any other remedies. Id. See also § 88.041, Fla.Stat. (1985); Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. dism’d, 412 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1982). Under URESA, the duty of support may be enforced in any responding state where jurisdiction over the obligor can be obtained, and it is the law of the responding state which defines th…
-
Gonzalez-Goenaga v. Gonzalez, 426 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…er the law of the foreign jurisdiction which is now being enforced in Florida. Compare the reasoning found in Cochran v. Cochran, 263 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The other points urged for reversal are found to be without merit. Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Stephens v. Stephens, 402 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Fugassi v. Fugassi, 332 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) Coch…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- In re the Marriage of Luz Joson Panganiban v. Panganiban, 396 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Loehe v. State, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- RAY v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)