THOMAS W. GARRETT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEANN GARRETT, 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.
Thomas Garrett appealed an order modifying his child support obligation, arguing the trial court improperly rejected his evidence and ordered excessive support. The court affirmed the modification but reversed the retroactive application date, holding that child support arrearages can only be imposed retroactively to the date the modification petition was filed, not to an earlier stipulated agreement date.
The trial court did not err in rejecting Garrett's evidence or the amount of child support imposed. However, child support arrearages can only be imposed retroactively to the date the modification petition was filed (April 1996), not to the date of a prior stipulated agreement (February 1994).
[1] A trial court may impose retroactive child support only to the date a party files a petition or counter-petition seeking such modification.
[2] An order reinstating original child support amounts retroactively to a date prior to the filing of the relevant petition or counter-petition is erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The trial court could impose retroactive support only to that date.”
Establishes the core holding that retroactive child support can only go back to the date the modification petition was filed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarrett and his former wife divorced, and approximately one year later, Garrett petitioned for a child support decrease based on drastically reduced i…
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 Petition To Modify Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
Thomas Garrett appeals the order denying his amended supplemental petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution. He argues that the trial court improperly rejected his evidence and further erred by ordering him to pay more child support than his income justifies. Based on our review of the record, we disagree with Garrett’s contentions.- However, we rémand this case based on error which is plain from the face of the order appealed.
A year after the divorce, Garrett petitioned for a decrease in child support, contending he had experienced a drastic reduction in income. Garrett and the former wife stipulated to a $150 per month decrease in child support. The trial court approved and adopted the stipulation by an order rendered in February 1994. Over two years later,- the former wife sought reimposition of the original child support amount. The trial court, in the order appealed, reinstated the original amount retroactive to February 1994.
The former .wife’s' counter-petition for modification which put Garrett on notice that she was seeking réimposition of the original child support amount was filed in April 1996. The trial court could impose retroactive support only to that date. See Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266, 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (wife entitled to support increase only retroactive-to date she filed therefor); Fayson v. Fayson, 482 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (same). Accordingly, we strike the child support arrearage provision and remand for recalculation of the arrearage retroactive only to the date of the former wife’s counter-petition for modification. We affirm all other provisions of the order. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cordell v. Cordell, 30 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ter-petition seeking that relief); Gherardi v. Gherardi, 712 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that an award for child support can be made retroactive only to the date of the filing of the petition for modification); Garrett v. Garrett, 707 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that a party is entitled to a retroactive child support increase only to the date a petition for modification is filed); Wertheim v. Wertheim, 667 So. 2d 331, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that retroactive modifi…
-
Shlomit Galperin v. Boris Galperin, 862 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…McDowell, 770 So. 2d 1289, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The rationale behind this rule is that it is the filing of the petition that places the obligated party on notice of a potential increase in his or her support obligation. See Garrett v. Garrett, 707 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Although the trial court eliminated the Former Wife’s obligation with respect to the child who had reached the age of majority, it granted the Former Husband’s request for an upward modification of support for the minor ch…
Authorities Cited
- Warner v. Warner, 692 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Ned R. Fayson v. Fayson, 482 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)