STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF SHERRIE ROCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE MORRIS, 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 Department of Revenue appealed a trial court's refusal to enforce child support obligations against George Morris based on the custodial mother's obstruction of visitation. The court reversed, holding that child support payments cannot be conditioned solely on a parent's compliance with visitation obligations, as child support is a vested right of the child.
A trial court may not condition the payment of child support, which is a vested right of the child, solely on a custodial parent's failure or refusal to comply with visitation obligations. The appellee's affirmative defenses and laches claim were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the trial court's ruling.
[1] A trial court may not condition the payment of child support on a custodial parent's failure to comply with visitation obligations.
[2] Child support is a vested right of the child, and its payment cannot be solely conditioned on a custodial parent's refusal to allow visitation.
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“a trial court may not condition the payment of child support, which is a vested right of the child, solely on a custodial parent's failure or refusal to comply with visitation obligations”
Establishes the core holding that child support cannot be conditioned on visitation compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherrie Rochell, the custodial mother of children for whom child support was ordered, allegedly obstructed visitation by George Morris, the natural fa…
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 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this action to enforce child support obligations under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1997), the Department of Revenue, on behalf of Sherrie Rochell, appeals a final order which refused to enforce the child support provisions of a previously entered Florida final judgment and of a previously entered Georgia final judgment. The trial court based its ruling solely on the finding that Rochelle, the natural mother and custodial parent of the children for whom child support was ordered, obstructed visitation by George Morris, the appellee and natural father. We reverse.
It is well-established that a trial court may not condition the payment of child support, which is a vested right of the child, solely on a custodial parent’s failure or refusal to comply with visitation obligations. See § 88.3051(4), Fla. Stat. (1997); Department of Revenue et al. v. David, 684 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
In addition, the order under review does not find that the natural mother engaged in such reprehensible conduct as to permit canceling or reducing the amount of the child support arrearage, see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., et al. v. Burns, 654 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Department of Revenue et al. v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), nor would the facts in the limited record, a stipulated statement of evidence prepared pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4), Florida Rules of Appellant Procedure, support such a finding in the instant case.
The appellee argues that under UIFSA various affirmative defenses are available to him which would also support the trial court’s decision. As the supreme court has recently reiterated, “[i]n some circumstances, even though a trial court’s ruling is based on improper reasoning, the ruling will be upheld if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling.” Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 24 Fla.
L. Weekly S71, S72, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999). For the appellee to argue for affirmance based upon the application of this so-called “tipsy coachman” rule, see Home Depot U.S.A., Co. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), however, the appellee’s argument on appeal must be supported by evidence in the record. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 24 Fla.
L. Weekly at S72-73. Although the appellee pled several affirmative defenses and argued the defense of laches on appeal, the record does not reflect an evidentiary basis sufficient to permit us to make a determination as to whether these defenses are applicable in the instant case. See Flanagan v. Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth, Romano, Eriksen & Kupfer, P.A., 594 So. 2d 776, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Specifically, with regard to the claim of laches, the stipulated statement of evidence does not refer to any conduct on the part of the natural mother, especially after entry of the March 27, 1995 stipulated final judgment, which would support a finding that she delayed in asserting a legal right to the prejudice of the appellee. See Hoffman v. Foley, 541 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Appellee has made no argument on appeal in support of other equitable defenses raised below. See Lynch v. Tennyson, 44B So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the challenged order is reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VAN NORTWICK AND PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)…al that misapplies this Court’s holding in Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999), and is in conflict with the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in State Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Rochell v. Morris, 736 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), regarding when an appellate court may uphold a lower court ruling on an alternative ground not considered by the lower court. The Third District’s decision also misapplies this Court’s opinions in Jordan v. State, 107 Fla. 3…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Levine, 837 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2002)…the key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d at 906; see also State Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Rochell v. Morris, 736 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). On that basis, the doctrine cannot be applied in this case because the record does not provide an adequate basis for us to reach such materiality conclusion as a pure matter of law. While the trial court did receive some arg…
-
Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…he key to applying the tipsy coachman doctrine is that the record before the trial court must support the alternative theory or principle of law. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 907; see also State Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Rochell v. Morris, 736 So. 2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). On that basis, the doctrine cannot be applied in this case because the record does not provide an adequate basis for us to reach such materiality conclusion as a pure matter of law. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Levine, N…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Home Depot U.S.A. Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Susan v. Hoffman, 541 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Burns, 654 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- State v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Flanagan v. Wagner, 594 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State v. David, 684 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)