STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF SANDRA BRINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW LEE EVANS, 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 trial court cannot extinguish child support arrears absent a pleading and proof of compelling circumstances.
The Department of Revenue appealed an order forgiving child support arrears that accrued while the father was incarcerated. The trial court, on its ow…
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 Willful Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
. The Department of Revenue, on behalf of Sandra Brinson, appeals an order “forgiving” Andrew Lee Evans of the child support arrears that accrued between April 26, 1985, the date the final judgment of paternity was entered, and March 27, 1996, the date Mr. Evans was released from incarceration. We reverse because Mr. Evans filed no pleading requesting this relief.
The Department filed a motion to show cause why Mr. Evans should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with his court-ordered obligations to pay support directly to the child and to reimburse the Department for payments it made to or on behalf of the child. On its own motion, the trial court found Mr. Evans not to be in willful contempt of his court-ordered child support obligations while he was incarcerated, and it extinguished the child support arrears that had accrued during that period.
We affirm the finding that Mr. Evans was not in willful contempt while he was incarcerated. We note that the trial court made Ho finding on whether Mr. Evans willfully failed to honor his child support obligation after he was released from incarceration. We reverse that part of the order extinguishing the vested child support arrears Mr. Evans owes because the trial court cannot modify this obligation absent a pleading and proof of compelling circumstances such as laches, estoppel, waiver, or other equitable reasons. See Florida, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hinson, 651 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Canady, 473 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). There is no such pleading or proof in this record.
Reversed and remanded for further .proceedings.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
von Eiff v. Leonor Azicri and Roberto Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1998)…ental visitation. See 699 So. 2d at 780-87 (Green, J., dissenting). Since Von Eiff was decided, the Fourth and Fifth Districts have found subsection (l)(a) to be an unconstitutional infringement on a parent’s right of privacy. See Russo v. Persico, 706 So. 2d 933, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review granted, 722 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1998); Fitts v. Poe, 699 So. 2d 348, 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The First District has aligned itself with the Von Eiff majority, certifying conflict with Fitts. See S.S. v. J.M.N., 703 So.…
-
Williams v. Spears, 719 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…a natural parent in an intact family and the fundamental rights of privacy of a widowed parent.” Fitts v. Poe, 699 So. 2d 348, 348-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The Fourth District followed Fitts and found the statute unconstitutional in Russo v. Persico, 706 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Here we are concerned with the constitutionality of section 752.01(1)(b) in a factual situation where, although divorced, the parents agree on the question of visitation. Under the “intact family” analysis of Beagle, subsection…
-
Ocasio v. McGLOTHIN, 719 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…778-87. Nevertheless, the doctrine of stare decisis compels us to adhere to the Von Eiff majority decision and affirm that part of the order finding section 752.01(l)(a) to be constitutional.1 In so doing, we certify conflict with Russo v. Persico, 706 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Fitts v. Poe, 699 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Since the Von Eiff majority opinion, however, specifically limited its holding only to section (l)(a), we must now address the constitutionality of section (l)(d) which perm…
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
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wheeler Canady, 473 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- The Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hinson, 651 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)