ALICE LASHONDA SANFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
ERICK LASHAUN DAVIS, 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.
Alice Sanford appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging numerous issues and specifically the modification of a child support order. The appellate court affirmed most issues but reversed and remanded regarding the child support modification because the trial court reduced the support amount without a request for modification or adequate factual findings.
The trial court erred in modifying the child support order because although circuit courts have authority to modify child support, the modification must be requested and supported by evidence justifying the modification. Here, there was no record evidence of a request for modification and no factual findings supporting the reduction from $484 to $350 per month.
[1] A trial court cannot modify an existing child support order without a request for modification from a party and appropriate factual findings to support the modification.
[2] A circuit court has the authority to modify child support orders, provided the modification is requested and supported by evidence justifying the change.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 circuit court is permitted to modify child support, see § 409.2563(10)(c), Fla. Stat.; see also Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (explaining that the circuit court has the authority to modify child support so long as the modification is requested and supported by evidence justifying modification)”
Establishes the legal standard that modification requires both a request and evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn administrative support order was entered on February 23, 2011, requiring Erick Davis to pay $484 per month in child support plus additional amounts…
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 Child Support Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
Alice L. Sanford appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises numerous issues that were either not preserved for appellate review or lacked merit; thus we affirm those without comment. Because the trial court modified an existing child support order without a request *786for modification and appropriate factual findings, however, we reverse and remand.
Ms. Sanford argues that the trial court erred by modifying an existing child support order. An administrative support order for the party’s minor child was entered on February 23, 2011. That order commenced on March 1, 2011 and required her former husband, Mr. Erick Davis, to pay (a) $484 per month until their “child marries, dies, becomes self-supporting, or attains the age of majority, or further order of this Court” and (b) $6 per month plus interest and applicable service charges “until the retroactive child support or arrearage [of $1,500] and applicable interest are paid in full.” The order also required Mr. Davis to pay $383 in costs and fees within one year. The final judgment at issue ordered Mr. Davis to pay $350 per month, together with applicable service fees. The order in the final judgment appears to supersede the March 1 order. While the circuit court is permitted to modify child support, see § 409.2563(10)(c), Fla. Stat.; see also Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (explaining that the circuit court has the authority to modify child support so long as the modification is requested and supported by evidence justifying modification), there is no record evidence that either party requested a modification, and neither the magistrate nor the trial court made any factual findings to support the reduction.
Given this error, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THOMAS, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Audely Hernandez v. Yosviel Guerra & Dep't of Revenue, 230 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ion to retroactively affect an administrative support order entered pursuant to section 409.2563, a circuit court has the power to issue a superseding order changing support obligations prospectively under section 409.2563(10)(c)); Sanford v. Davis, 136 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing portion of final judgment of dissolution modifying existing administrative support order where neither party requested modification and trial court failed to make factual findings supporting modification).…
Authorities Cited
- Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)