MARCELINA ALVAREZ AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HRS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CELESTINO ALVAREZ, 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 a prior judgment on child support arrearages precludes relitigation of issues decided in that judgment, even if raised by motion.
After a prior judgment for child support arrearages, the father filed a motion to contest the judgment, seeking a credit for payments made directly to…
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
PER CURIAM.
In November 1990, the circuit court ruled, in an action for child-support arrear-ages, that the appellee/father owed the appellant/mother $2,793. The father’s claim of entitlement to a credit for cash given directly to the daughter was rejected. No appeal was taken.
Six months later, the father filed a “Motion to Contest Impending Judgment,” as serting again that the $2,793 award should be reduced by the amount paid directly to the child. The mother opposed the motion on grounds that (1) payments to the child rather than to the mother were gifts that should not be credited against child-support arrearages, and (2) the principle of res judi-cata precluded relitigation of the issue whether payments to the child should be credited against the father’s obligation to make child-support payments to the mother. Agreeing with the father, the court entered an order setting-off from the earlier judgment the amount of the father’s claimed payments to the daughter. We address the preclusion issue only and reverse.
When a fact, an issue, or a cause of action has been decided by a trial court of competent jurisdiction, neither of the parties involved shall be allowed to call into question and relitigate the thing decided, so long as the judgment or decree stands un-reversed. AGB Oil Co. v. Crystal Exploration and Prod. Co., 406 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982). Res judicata also applies to matters raised by motion. Id. In that the set-off issue had been litigated and decided in the November 1990 hearing, it was not subject to relitigation in May 1991.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charney v. Herskowitz, 689 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ctrine of res judicata, the Herskowitzes are barred from relitigating that issue once again. See Maison Grande Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Dorten, Inc., 621 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1994); Alvarez v. Alvarez, 598 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse.…
-
State v. Cheren, 905 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e also Hoffman v. Foley, 541 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Moreover, the order under review purported, in part, to relieve the appellee of obligations which had been reduced to an unappealed final judgment two years before. See Alvarez v. Alvarez, 598 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Wood, 600 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Dep’t of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So. 2d 486, 490 (Fla.2003). The most fundamental principles of res judicata and finality forbid such a ruling…
Authorities Cited
- AGB OIL Co. v. Crystal Exploration & Prod. Co., 406 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)