CINDY LIVINGSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DAN LIVINGSTON, 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 a lower court's decision to reduce child support due to a substantial change in circumstances but reversed the retroactive application of the reduction. The court clarified that child support reductions can only be made prospectively.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a substantial change in circumstances for child support modification. However, the court held that the child support modification could not be made retroactive.
[1] A substantial change in financial circumstances can support a modification of child support obligations.
[2] A reduction in child support obligations may not be made retroactive absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“As to the former issue, we find that competent, substantial evidence in the record does support a finding of a substantial change in circumstances and that the lower court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in ordering a reduction in child support.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the lower court's finding of a substantial change in circumstances for child support reduction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband sought to modify child support and alimony after losing his job and experiencing a significant salary reduction. The lower court gr…
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 Retroactive Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cindy Livingston, the former wife, challenges a final order modifying the amount of child support payable by her former husband, Dan Livingston, the appellee, under a dissolution judgment. The former husband had filed a motion for modification of both child support and alimony, following the termination of his employment and a fifty percent reduction in his salary. The lower court granted a modification of child support retroactive to a date one month following the former husband’s loss of income, but denied any modification of alimony. The former wife argues that the trial court erred both (i) in finding that a substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated on the record which entitled the former husband to a reduction in his child support obligation and (ii) in making the modification retroactive. As to the former issue, we find that competent, substantial evidence in the record does support a finding of a substantial change in circumstances and that the lower court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in ordering a reduction in child support.
We agree, however, that the lower court erred in making the child support modification retroactive. While an increase in child support may be made retroactive at the discretion of the lower court, Butler v. Brewster, 629 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances, see, State ex rel. Pittman v. Stanjeski, 562 So. 2d 673, 678 (Fla.1990), a reduction in child support may not be made retroactive. As explained in State, Dept. of Revenue v. Segrera, 661 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), “[bjecause support obligations become vested rights of the payee and vested obligations of the payor at the time payments are due, child support payments [at least so far as a reduction is concerned] may only be modified prospectively and are not subject to retroactive modification.” See also, Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent, 680 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Butler v. Lavonne Brewster, 629 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jed Pittman v. Stanjeski, 562 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Segrera, 661 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Kimberlee Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent, 680 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)