STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND MARIA SEGRERA, APPELLANTS,
v.
NICHOLAS SEGRERA, 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.
Florida's Department of Revenue and a mother appealed a trial court order that granted the father a retroactive reduction in child support obligations when one child reached majority. The court reversed, holding that child support modifications can only be applied prospectively, not retroactively, because support rights and obligations vest when payments are due.
A trial court may grant a reduction in child support when one child attains majority, but such reduction must be applied prospectively from the date the modification motion is filed and favorably acted upon, not retroactively, because support rights and obligations become vested at the time payments are due.
[1] Child support payments may only be modified prospectively and are not subject to retroactive modifications.
[2] A party seeking a reduction in child support has the duty to petition the court for such reduction when a child attains majority.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“child support payments may only be modified prospectively and are not subject to retroactive modifications”
Establishes the fundamental principle that retroactive child support modifications are impermissible because support rights vest when payments are due.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father and mother had a settlement agreement incorporated into their divorce judgment requiring the father to pay $300 per month in child support …
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 Motion For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners below, the State and the mother, appeal from an order denying their motion to vacate an order granting the father a retroactive reduction in his child support obligation. We reverse.,
In the underlying case, the father agreed, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement that was later incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, to pay the wife $300 per month in child support for their two children. In November 1994, when the petitioners brought a motion for contempt against the father seeking child support arrearages, the father moved for a retroactive modification of his child support obligation on the basis that one of his two children had reached the age of majority in February 1994 and was emancipated. These motions were argued before a hearing officer, and subsequently, the trial court approved the hearing officer’s recommended order that effectively granted the father a retroactive reduction in his child support obligation. The order stated that the father should receive credit toward his arrearages for child support payments that he had made for the emancipated child since February 1994. Subsequently, the petitioners’ motion to vacate the order granting the father a retroactive reduction in his child support obligation was denied, and this appeal follows.
It is well established that a trial court may, in its discretion, award a lump sum, rather than a separate amount of support for each child, and that the party seeking a reduction in support has the duty to petition the court to reduce the amount when one child attains majority.... The payor parent must continue to make child support payments pursuant to the provisions of a valid order until he files a motion for modification and such motion is favorably acted upon.
State, Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citations omitted); see also, Alpert v. Alpert, 479 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Because support obligations become vested rights of the payee and vested obligations of the payor at the time the payments are due, child support payments may only be modified prospectively and are not subject to retroactive modifications. Puglia v. Puglia, 600 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
In the instant case, we find that the parties entered into an agreement wherein the father, agreed to pay the wife a lump-sum, unallocated amount of child support for both children. Carwell, 524 So. 2d at 485. The record reveals that the father properly petitioned, as he. is required to do, for a reduction in child support after one child attained the age of majority. Carwell, 524 So. 2d at 485. However, because support rights and obligations vest at the time the payments are due, the trial court erred by granting the father a retroactive reduction in child support. Instead, the trial court should have granted the reduction prospectively from the date that the motion for modification was filed and favorably acted upon. Carwell, 524 So. 2d at 485.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the petitioners’ motion to vacate the order granting the father a retroactive reduction in his child support obligation, and we remand this cause with instructions for the trial court to grant a prospective reduction in the father’s child support obligation pursuant to the child support guidelines.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Hall, 699 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…2 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The parent must continue to make full support payments until he or she successfully, obtains modification, and the payments vest when they are due. State, Dept. of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement v. Segrera, 661 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In the instant case the final order of dissolution provided for a lump sum support payment for the four children. The former husband therefore had the duty to petition the court for modification as each child reached majority an…
-
Alexander v. Verdell H. Alexander, 683 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…led a motion for modification and the motion was favorably ruled upon. Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1990); see also, State Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement v. Segrera, 661 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In addition, we recognize that a trial court may decline to enforce a past-due obligation if a party obligated to pay child support establishes the existence of extraordinary or compelling circumstances such as waiver, lache…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Wilson, 782 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…fails to allocate the amount of support attributable to each child, the trial court cannot retroactively terminate child support before the date the petitioner requested such relief. See State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement v. Segrera, 661 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also Fla. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. McClung v. McClung, 760 So. 2d 244, 245-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding when total child support award is expressly allocated between two or more children, upon the happening of qualifyi…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carol Puglia & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Puglia, 600 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Alpert v. Alpert, 479 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Irizarry v. The BOC Grp., 479 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)