STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF NADEAN THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
LEE ROY THOMAS, 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 reduction in child support is a substantive change, not a clerical mistake, and thus not correctable under Rule 1.540(a).
The State of Florida appealed an order reducing a father's child support obligation from $500 to $400 per month. The father argued the initial $500 aw…
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 Reprehensible Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida, Department of Revenue, by and on behalf of Nadean Thomas, appeals an order granting a motion for relief from the final judgment of dissolution. The order reduced Lee Roy Thomas’ child support obligation from $500 to $400 per month. We reverse.
Lee Roy Thomas contends that he was entitled to relief under Rule 1.540(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, because the initial award of $500 child support was due to a “clerical” mistake in the entry of the judgment. However, clerical mistakes under Rule 1.540(a) encompass only errors or mistakes from accidental slip or omission and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order. Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla.1979); Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(change in the amount of child support due is a change in “substance” not a “clerical” mistake). There was no evidence in this case that the trial judge who entered the final judgment of dissolution meant to award only $400 in child support support, but through an accidental slip or omission awarded $500 instead.
Appellant’s Issue II, arguing that the effect of the trial court’s order will be to erroneously retroactively modify vested child support arrearages, has been rendered moot by our reversal of that order. Upon remand, if the trial court wishes to reduce past-due child support arrearages, it must be guided by the law that “absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances such as waiver, laches, estoppel, or reprehensible conduct on the part of the custodial parent, a trial court cannot cancel or retrospectively reduce the amount of past-due installments owed.” State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Burns, 654 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…judgment pursuant [*239] to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, or by appellate review. See Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, ex rel. Thomas v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Frisard v. Frisard, 497 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Pompano Atlantis Condo. Ass’n v. Merlino, 415 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The error that occurred below was a judicial error that affected the substance of the judgment…
-
Malone v. Percival, 875 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…dgment made by the trial court were, however, beyond the scope of the clerical corrections to final judgments authorized by rule 1.540(a). A change in the amount of child support required to be paid is substantive, not clerical. See State v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The addition of a provision extending support for the parties’ son beyond his eighteenth birthday until his graduation from high school was substantive, not cleric…
-
Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Jennifer Lorraine Williams v. Annis, 159 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…DCA 2003). Instead, a change in the amount of child support is considered a substantive change which may not be corrected by rule 1.540(a). See Malone v. Percival, 875 So. 2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Thomas v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Similarly, a mistaken view of the facts or law is considered a judicial error that may not be corrected by rule 1.540(a). See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Moforis v.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town OF Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Burns, 654 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)