MICHAEL T. TATUM, APPELLANT,
v.
LIZBETH TRIANA-TATUM, 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.
Former Husband appeals a modification judgment increasing his child support obligation and permitting permanent relocation of the parties' minor child. The appellate court found error only in the retroactive accrual date for child support arrearages, which was set eleven days too early.
Retroactive child support begins to run from the date the petition for modification is filed, not from an earlier date chosen by the court. The trial court erred by setting June 15, 2012 as the retroactive accrual date when the petition was not filed until June 26, 2012. The case is remanded for recalculation of child support arrearages with the retroactive period beginning June 26, 2012 and ending October 3, 2013.
[1] Retroactive child support accrues from the date a petition for modification is filed with the court.
[2] A trial court errs by setting the accrual date for retroactive child support earlier than the date the petition for modification was filed.
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“Retroactive child support begins to run from the date the petition for modification is filed.”
Establishes the legal rule governing when retroactive child support accrues
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved on October 14, 2008, with a marital settlement agreement requiring Former Husband to pay $228.42 per month in chil…
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael T. Tatum (“Former Husband”) timely appeals the final judgment entered on Lizbeth Triana-Tatum’s (“Former Wife”) petition for modification of the child support obligation and permanent relocation of the parties’ minor child. We find error only in the calculation of retroactive child support.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved on October 14, 2008, pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution that incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring former husband to pay $228.42 per month in‘child support for their minor child'. On June 26, 2012,1 former wife sought to modify the final judgment. Thereafter, on October 3, 2013, final judgment was entered on former wife’s petition for modification. The final- judgment increased former husband’s monthly child support obligation from $228.42 to $610.21, retroactive to June 15, 2012, along with an additional $122 per month to cover $5,730 in new arrearages resulting from the retroactive increase)
Retroactive child support begins to run from the date the petition for modification is filed. Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So.3d 968, 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Anderson, 609 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)); Stokes v. Huelsman, 770 So.2d 701, 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In this case, the trial court set June 15, 2012 as the accrual date for retroactive child support, which former husband correctly argues is eleven days too early. Because the supplemental petition for modification was not filed with the court until June 26, 2012, we remand for recalculation of child support arrearages from the retroactive period beginning on June 26, 2012 and ending on October 3, 2013, when the final judgment was entered. See Mayfield, 103 So.3d at 971; Finch v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. John-Jules, 65 So.3d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So.2d 749, 750-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Stokes, 770 So.2d at 702. In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and.REMANDED. ,
WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Anderson, 609 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Mayfield v. Mayfield, 103 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Ashton J. Finch v. Dep't OF Revenue, 65 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Stokes v. Huelsman, 770 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)