STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY AND ON BEHALF OF LOUISE FISHER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOBBY FISHER, 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 Florida Department of Revenue appealed a trial court order reducing Bobby Fisher's child support obligation retroactively. The appellate court held that while the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss, it erred in applying a retroactive reduction without finding extraordinary or compelling circumstances as required by law.
The appellate court found the denial of the motion to dismiss was proper and without merit. However, the court agreed that the retroactive reduction violated established law because the trial court failed to make a finding of extraordinary or compelling circumstances required to justify retroactive reduction of child support.
[1] A retroactive reduction in child support may not be granted absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances.
[2] Extraordinary or compelling circumstances justifying retroactive child support reduction may include waiver, laches, estoppel, or reprehensible conduct by the custodial p…
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“A reduction in child support may not be made retroactive "absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances."”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for retroactive child support modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobby Fisher sought to modify his child support obligation. The trial court granted a reduction that applied retroactively to September and October 19…
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 For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida, Department of Revenue, on behalf of Louise Fisher, challenges an order reducing the child support obligation of Bobby Fisher, appellee. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the appel-lee’s petition for modification and in retroactively reducing the appellee’s child support obligation. We find the issue raised regarding the denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss to be without merit. We agree with appellant, however, that the lower court erred in reducing the amount of child support already owed by appellee for the months of September and October 1998 without a finding of extraordinary or compelling circumstances. As a result, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
A reduction in child support may not be made retroactive “absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances.” Barr v. Barr, 724 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Livingston v. Livingston, 686 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In the order on appeal, the trial court made no finding that extraordinary and compelling circumstances were shown by the record. Further, appellee has failed to identify in the record extraordinary and compelling circumstances, such as waiver, laches, estoppel, or reprehensible conduct on the part of the custodial parent, which would justify a retroactive application of a reduction in child support. Strickler, 702 So. 2d at 278; State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Accordingly, the order on the supplemental petition for modification is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BOOTH, MINER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noralyn Miles v. Champlin, 805 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…or supplemental action for modification as equity requires.” § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Any other rule might encourage tactics designed to delay final disposition of a petition. But Ms. Miles relies on State, Department of Revenue v. Fisher, 738 So. 2d 512, 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), State, Department of Revenue v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), Livingston v. Livingston, 686 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Burns, 654 So…
-
Bambi L. Ulander v. Ulander, 824 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ston, 686 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). A reduction in child support that is already owed may not be made absent a finding of extraordinary or compelling circumstances. Dep’t of Revenue v. Fisher, 738 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Here, the trial court did not make a finding of extraordinary or compelling circumstances before reducing the arrearage by one-half. In addition, the trial court erred in failing to award to the former wife pre and post judgme…
Authorities Cited
- Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Cnty. OF Sarasota v. Zacker, 686 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- State v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Barr v. Barr, 724 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)