PATRICIA A. BROWNE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHAD W. BROWNE, 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 court held that the trial court erred in not making the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification.
The appellant sought modification of rehabilitative alimony and child support. The former husband stipulated to increased needs and ability to pay, an…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Patricia Browne, challenges an order on her motion to modify rehabilitative alimony and child support. We have examined the briefs and record and find merit in only one of the two issues she raises on appeal.
Ms. Browne correctly argues that the trial court erred in not making the increase in child support-retroactive to the date of her petition. At the hearing on Ms. Browne’s motion, her former husband, Ap-pellee Chad Browne, stipulated that the children’s financial needs had increased and that he had the ability to pay a larger amount of child support. In its order, the trial court confirmed the children’s need and Mr. Browne’s ability to pay and ordered increased support. The court erred, however, in not making the increased payment retroactive to the date of the petition. See Friedman v. Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accord, Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); HRS v. Whitman, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1979).
Accordingly, we affirm that part of the trial court’s order denying Ms. Browne’s motion to convert her rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony or extend the time for her rehabilitative alimony. We remand for the trial court to enter an amended order making the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification.
FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snyder v. Linville, 659 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…was filed. The record shows that the need for increased child support and the father’s ability to pay existed on that date. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not making the increased support award retroactive. See Browne v. Browne, 569 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Additionally, the record shows that the father was in a substantially superi- or financial position to the mother. Therefore, the trial court erred by not awarding attorney’s fees to her. See § 742.045, Fla. Stat. (1993). Accor…
Authorities Cited
- Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Friedman v. Laurence Friedman, 307 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Fotorny v. Fotorny, 397 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Witcher v. Petty, 534 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Sears v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Whitman, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)