CHRISTINE M. GUARINO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH J. GUARINO, 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.
A wife appealed a trial court's denial of her motion to reduce accumulated child support arrearages (unpaid mortgage payments) to judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the contempt motion but reversed and remanded regarding the arrearages, holding that while the court may exercise discretion in declining to hold the husband in contempt, the wife is entitled to have arrearages reduced to judgment.
The trial court properly denied the contempt motion and permitted the husband to reduce arrearages at $50 per month due to his lack of present ability to pay. However, the wife is entitled to have the accumulated arrearages of $652.92 reduced to judgment, subject to the trial court's discretion to condition enforcement on the husband's adherence to a payment schedule.
[1] A wife is entitled to enforcement by legal process of vested child support payments in arrears, even if a court exercises its discretion to refrain from holding the husba…
[2] A trial court may allow a party owing accrued child support arrearages to reduce the debt by making additional monthly payments, even if the party lacked the present abil…
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“the right of a wife to payment of child support in arrears is vested, and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for nonpayment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payment by legal process”
Establishes the core holding that arrearages must be reduced to judgment despite discretion to avoid contempt finding
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' marriage was dissolved by final judgment on December 15, 1981. The settlement required the husband to pay one-half of the monthly mortgag…
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 Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
A final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties to this appeal was rendered on December 15, 1981. On June 22, 1982, appellant wife filed a motion for contempt against appellee husband alleging the husband’s nonpayment of his half of the mortgage payments for four months, nonpayment of one-half of a doctor bill for treatment of the parties’ child, and nonpayment of the child support payment due on June 4, 1982. On the same day, the wife filed a motion for alternative relief in the form of a judgment against the husband for the arrearages claimed. After hearing on both motions, the trial court denied the wife’s motion for contempt and for judgment for arrearages. After review of the record and the applicable case law, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
The husband admitted that he had failed to pay as additional required child support one-half of the monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence beginning with the March payment and continuing each month thereafter as long as the wife enjoyed exclusive possession of the marital domicile. Payments for the months of March, April, May, and June, 1982, were due and owing at the time of the hearing. Moreover, contrary to the trial court’s statement at the hearing and in the order appealed, the transcript of the hearing clearly establishes that the wife testified to the precise amount of the mortgage payment, and her figures were never challenged by the husband.
The law is well established that the right of a wife to payment of child support in arrears is vested, and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for nonpayment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payment by legal process. Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Since the husband did not have the present ability to pay the mortgage payments, the trial court acted properly in allowing the husband to reduce the accrued $652.92 arrear-age by paying an additional $50 per month. Smithwiek. However, the wife is entitled to have the accrued arrearages reduced to judgment. Roffe.
We have considered the other two points raised by the husband and find both to be without merit.
Accordingly, we vacate that part of the trial court’s order denying the wife’s motion to reduce the accumulated child support (mortgage payment) arrearages to judgment and the finding that the wife’s proof of the amount lacked specificity, and we remand to the trial court with directions to enter judgment against the husband in the amount of $652.92; the amended order may, however, permit the husband to pay this amount at the rate of $50 per month and may provide that the wife may not sue on the judgment until further order of the court as long as the husband adheres to the prescribed payment schedule. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
GRIMES and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Carol Puglia & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Puglia, 600 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…yment of child support in arrears is vested, and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for nonpayment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payment by legal process. Guarino v. Guarino, 431 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983). Generally, child support payments may be modified only prospectively through a modification of the child support agreement.1 See Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…payments by legal process and by such equitable remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate and necessary. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Canady, 473 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Guarino v. Guarino, 431 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review dismissed, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1983); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In other words, the trial court may not reduce a child support arrearage to judgment and then withhold execution. Ex…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wheeler Canady, 473 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…wed by appellee in the absence of a proper pleading and in ordering appellant to amend its income tax refund interception certification. We note that a receiving spouse has a vested right to payment of child support in arrears. Guarino v. Guarino, 431 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Absent compelling circumstances or a valid defense, a trial court lacks the authority to retroactively cancel or reduce past due child support payments. Raybuck, v. Raybuck, 451 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Such compelling circ…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)