CONSTANCE M. REEVES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES J. REEVES, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
[*1346] PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment on remand, increasing the former husband’s monthly child support obligation. The former wife contends that the increase in child support should have been made retroactive to the date of the original final order. On cross appeal, the former husband contends that award should not have been increased.
We affirm. as to the increase in child support. However, the circumstances justifying the increased award existed on the date of the original final order. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to make the award retroactive to the date of the original final order. BOOTH, MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tish Bardin v. State, 720 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ed need for support and the former husband’s ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wife’s petition for modification was filed.”); Brock v. Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding same); Reeves v. Reeves, 586 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding same); Davis v. Davis, 581 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding same). The record in the instant case shows that the child needed support from the time Bardin filed her petition and that Bailey had [*612] the ability…1 / 2
-
Kirkland v. Kirkland, 618 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Where the record demonstrates that the former wife had the need and the former husband had the continuous ability to pay, it is appropriate for the trial court to award the alimony retroactively. Cf. Reeves v. Reeves, 586 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (where circumstances justifying an increased child support order existed on the date of the final order, trial court directed to make award retroactive); Perdue v. Perdue, 506 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (increase in alimony sh…
-
Miller v. Miller, 826 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (same where “the child’s increased need for support and the former husband’s ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wife’s petition for modification was filed.”); Reeves v. Reeves, 586 So. 2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (same); Davis v. Davis, 581 So. 2d 1005, 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (same). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. BOOTH and Van NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence