JEFFREY L. BATTS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DANA H. BATTS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue raised on this appeal by Jeffrey Batts (former husband) is whether there was competent evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred in order to support an increase in child support. Based on our reading of sections 61.13 and 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1989), we agree with the trial court that there was competent substantial evidence establishing a substantial change in circumstances.
As to the issues raised by the former wife on cross-appeal, we reverse. In calculating a modified child support amount, the trial court incorrectly allowed a deduction from the former husband’s gross income which represented the amount he was currently paying in child support. This contravenes section 61.-30(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1989). Additionally, an increased award of child support should be made retroactive to the time when a petition for modification of a domestic judgment of dissolution is filed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires’ ”) (citation omitted). Furthermore, child support modifications should be made retroactive to the time when the petition for modification was filed. See Batts v. Batts, 600 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). When the trial court dismissed the mother’s initial petition for modification, the trial court treated the second amended petition for modification as the mother’s initial pleading which did not relate back to any other pleadin…
-
Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…plying it, it is apparent that this income deduction relates to child support actually paid for children other than those shared by the parties to the subject dissolution. See, e.g., Green v. Green, 672 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Batts v. Batts, 600 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Copeland v. Copeland, 667 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“The language of section 61.30(3) was intended to permit only those items listed in the statute as deductions from gross income.”). Without the improper $8,266.…