NORALYN MILES, APPELLANT,
v.
J. BROOKS CHAMPLIN, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's order reducing a father's child support payments retroactively to the date he filed his modification petition, after the children no longer incurred day care expenses. The court held that Florida Statute § 61.14(1)(a) permits such retroactive reduction to the filing date when equity requires.
A trial court may modify a child support order by decreasing support retroactively to the date of filing the modification petition when equity requires, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering such a retroactive reduction with incremental recovery through prospective offsets.
[1] A trial court has discretion to make a reduction in child support retroactive to the date a petition for modification was filed, when equity requires.
[2] A trial court may modify an order of support by increasing or decreasing the support retroactively to the date of the filing of an action or supplemental action for modif…
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“A trial court may "modify an order of support ... by increasing or decreasing the support ... retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires."”
Establishes the statutory authority for retroactive modification of child support to the filing date of the modification petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. Brooks Champlin was ordered by final judgment in his divorce from Noralyn Miles to pay child support including a child care cost component. Champli…
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 Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
The final judgment dissolving his marriage to Noralyn Miles required J. Brooks Champlin to make child support payments, which included a child care cost component. See § 61.30(7), Fla. Stat. (1993). Ms. Miles now appeals a subsequent order reducing the amount of the payments. We affirm.
The order under review made the reduction in child support payments effective as of the date Mr. Champlin filed his petition for modification alleging that Ms. Miles was no longer paying for day care. At the hearing on the petition, it was uncontro-verted that the children had not incurred day care expenses for at least two years before the petition was filed.
A trial court may “modify an order of support ... by increasing or decreasing the support ... retroactively to the date of the filing of the action 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. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in contending that no such reduction was allowed in the First District before section 61.14(l)(a) was amended. See Ch.2001-158, § 10, at 1296-97, Laws of Fla. We believe a better reading of the cited authorities limits them to precluding (in the ordinary case) diminution of child support retroactively to a date before any petition for reduction had been filed.
On this basis, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a reduction in child support retroactive to the date Mr. Champlin filed the petition for modification, and providing him incremental recovery by prospective offsets over a period of thirty-five months. See Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent, 680 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (finding that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing child support retroactive to the date of the filing of an out-of-state petition for modification because the husband presented no evidence “that the instant case [wa]s merely a continuation of [the out-of-state] proceeding”); see also Brock v. Brock, 695 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Robinson v. Robinson, 657 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Barrs v. Barrs, 590 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Cf Yockey v. Yockey, 784 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Under the statute, after the amendment as before, a trial court has discretion to make a reduction of child support retroactive to the date the petition for modification was filed, whenever “equity requires.” § 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Affirmed.
DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ifications. See Alois v. Alois, 937 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The trial court’s authority to order a reduction in a child support obligation retroactive to the date on which a petition for modification is filed is clear. See Miles v. Champlin, 805 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“[A] trial court may ‘modify an order of support ... by increasing or decreasing the support ... retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires’ ”) (citatio…
-
Kuttas v. Anne R. Ritter, 879 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…r had even attempted to do so prior to the final hearing. Although we recognize that respite care for special needs children is not the same as babysitting or other kinds of child care, the financial considerations are similar. In Miles v. Champlin, 805 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the First District affirmed an order reducing child support payable to the mother, which was retroactive to the date of the father’s petition, because “it was uncontroverted that the children had not'incurred day care expe…
-
Colette O. deLABRY v. David J. Sales, 134 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…otes, our sister court since has explained its statement in Livingston was describing the circumstances for making child support reductions retroactive to the date circumstances changed, as opposed to the date of the petition. See Miles v. Champlin, 805 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“We believe a better reading of the cited authorities limits them to precluding (in the ordinary case) diminution of child support retroactively to a date before any petition for reduction had been filed”). Thus, the circu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Monteze Barrs v. Barrs, 590 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 657 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Brock v. Voncile Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Cnty. OF Sarasota v. Zacker, 686 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. Burns, 654 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- State v. Strickler, 702 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Kimberlee Miller-Bent v. Miller-Bent, 680 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Yockey v. Yockey, 784 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Watson v. Pepper, 738 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)