H.R.N., APPELLANT,
v.
S.D.L. AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLEES
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.
Father's appeal of child support modification order is affirmed as to the current support calculation but reversed and remanded as to retroactive support, which was incorrectly calculated to include child care expenses that did not begin until July 2015.
The trial court correctly calculated the father's ongoing monthly child support obligation for two children but erred in calculating retroactive support by including child care expenses from January 2014 when such expenses only began in July 2015.
[1] Retroactive child support including child care expenses may only be imposed from the date such expenses were actually incurred, not from an earlier date when no such expe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH.R.N. and S.D.L. had two children: B.R.N. born in 2011 with an initial child support order, and A.E.N. born in 2014, triggering a modification order …
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 Modification Of Support Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
H.R.N., the father, appeals an order modifying the amount of child support he is required to pay for his two children with S.D.L., the mother. H.R.N. and S.DL.’s first child, B.R.N., was born in 2011, and an order was entered that same year establishing paternity and setting his monthly child support payments. Their second child, A.E.N., was born in 2014, and an order establishing paternity for A.E.N. was entered. This order also modified H.R.N.’s monthly child support obligation to include support for both children. We find no merit in H.R.N.’s argument that the trial court erred in calculating his monthly child support obligation.
However, the Department of Revenue correctly concedes that the trial court erred in determining the amount of retroactive child support due. The trial court began calculating retroactive child support beginning on January 13, 2014, the younger child’s date of birth. In doing so, it used a monthly support amount of $776, which includes $170 per week in child care expenses. At the hearing, which occurred on October 28, 2015, S.D.L. testified that she had been paying $170 a week in child care expenses for three months. Therefore, the trial court should have included the $170 weekly child care expense starting at the end of July 2015. Accordingly, it was error to require H.R.N. to pay $170 per week for child care expenses from January 13, 2014, to July 2015. We therefore reverse and remand this case for the trial court to recalculate the amount of retroactive child support due.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part,
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlyn Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 264 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…mitted plaintiff to introduce hearsay evidence of a default letter's mailing, without which there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that plaintiff had mailed a notice of acceleration letter to defendants); and Mathis v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 227 So. 3d 189, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding for an involuntary dismissal where evidence was insufficient to establish plaintiff's standing to enforce note); and Allen v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., 216 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing…