CELSO ALVARADO, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O MARISOL ALVARADO, 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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a child support modification order, holding that an unallocated lump sum child support obligation under a Marital Settlement Agreement requires the obligor to petition the court for modification upon a child's emancipation, and that modifications are retroactive only to the date the petition is filed.
A parent paying unallocated child support must petition the court for modification when a child reaches majority age, as there is no automatic reduction provision. Modifications of child support are retroactive only to the date the petition for modification is filed, not to any earlier date.
[1] An unallocated lump sum child support payment established by a Marital Settlement Agreement does not automatically reduce or step down upon the emancipation of a child, r…
[2] A parent paying unallocated child support must petition the court to reduce the amount when one child reaches majority age.
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 parent paying unallocated child support must petition the court to reduce the amount when one child reaches majority age”
Establishes the core holding that unallocated child support requires court petition upon emancipation, not automatic reduction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCelso Alvarado and Marisol Alvarado were divorced pursuant to a Marital Settlement Agreement that established an unallocated lump sum child support ob…
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 Emancipation cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the order on appeal. We agree with Appellee that the terms of the Marital Settlement Agreement established an unallocated lump sum to be paid -by Appellant as child support for the parties’ four children.1 Given the language of the *545Marital Settlement Agreement, there was no 'automatic reduction or step-down amount upon emancipation of any one of the parties’ four children. Accordingly, Appellant was required to file a petition for modification of his child support obligation. See State, Dept. of Rev. ex rel. Ortega v. Ortega, 948 So.2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that a parent paying unallocated child support must petition the court to reduce the amount when one child reaches majority age); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So.2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (same). .
We further hold that the trial court did not err in its order modifying Appellant’s child support obligation retroactively to the date of the filing of the petition for modification, rather than to a date prior to the filing of the petition, as sought by Appellant. See Cordell v. Cordell, 30 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) and cases cited (holding that, as a general ■ rule, a modification of child support is retroactive only to the date of the filing of a petition for modification).2 There is no-record support for Appellant’s assertion that the Marital Settlement Agreement required the court to modify the support obligation retroactively to any earlier date.
Affirmed. •
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 319 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
Rios v. Quiala (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Vair, 226 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…judgment in a foreclosure case entering attorney’s fees for the borrowers and against the lender. Because the judgment for the borrowers in the underlying foreclosure action has been reversed by this court in U.S. Bank National Association v. Vair, 194 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), on the authority of Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), the related judgment at issue in this appeal awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the borrowers must also be reversed. Revers…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Hardy v. State, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Ass'n Emp'rs Ins. Co. v. Am. Excavating & PSI, Inc., 701 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- 7550 Bldg., Inc. v. Atl. Rack & Shelving, Inc., 999 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- G & S Dev. Corp. v. Seitlin, 47 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Cordell v. Cordell, 30 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- State v. Leonel Ortega, 948 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)