SUE HOLT, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES T. HOLT, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's modification of spousal support but reversed on the issue of prejudgment interest, requiring the trial court to award prejudgment interest on the arrearage.
A trial court must award prejudgment interest on family support arrearages, not merely post-judgment interest.
[1] Prejudgment interest must be awarded on family support arrearages in addition to post-judgment interest.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 trial court erred when it neglected to require the former husband to pay any prejudgment interest on the family support arrearage”
The court identified the specific error requiring reversal and remand.
Sue Holt and Charles T. Holt were former spouses with cross motions for modification of support obligations. The trial court denied the former wife's …
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 Post-Judgment Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Presented with cross motions for modification of the former husband's support obligation, the trial court entered an order denying the former wife’s motion for an increase in family support, decreasing the former husband’s support obligation because of the emancipation of one of the parties’ children, determining the former husband’s arrearage and ordering him to pay the full amount plus post-judgment interest within 120 days. In a separate order, the court required the former husband to pay a portion of the former wife’s attorney’s fee. The appellant, Sue Holt, challenges the trial court’s orders and presses four issues on appeal. We have examined the briefs, the record and the appellant’s notice of additional authority and find merit in one of her four arguments.
The appellant persuasively argues that the trial court erred when it neglected to require the former husband to pay any prejudgment interest on the family support arrearage. See Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, this matter is returned to the trial court for entry of an appropriate award of prejudgment interest on the former husband’s arrearage. The remaining portions of the trial court’s orders are affirmed.
WIGGINTON, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strickland v. Fla. A & M Univ., 799 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law.” Thus, it is an abuse of discretion to disregard the findings of fact that are based on competent substantial evidence. See Southpointe Pharmacy v. Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs., 596 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(“Where the hearing officer’s findings of fact and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are based upon competent and substantial evidence, it is a gross abuse of discretion for the agency to disregard those findings.”) Furth…
-
Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ional support for our holding that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages. Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (1st DCA1980), pet. for rev. den., 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1981); Holt v. Holt, 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Ledford v. Leirer, 486 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA1986). We affirm the orders in all other respects. Absent any evidence on which the trial court could base a finding that t…
-
Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ial court’s failure to award prejudgment interest on the accrued support arrearage. See Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (wife entitled to prejudgment interest on support arrearages from date such payments were due); Holt v. Holt, 596 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1981). We remand to the trial court for entry of an appropriate award of preju…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)