SAGIA D. CASTANEDA
v.
CARLOS CASTANEDA
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.
A trial court's modification of alimony is affirmed, but the case is remanded to recalculate the arrearage amount to $14,000 based on the 28-month period with the reduced obligation.
[1] An order granting a petition for modification of alimony may be affirmed while remanding for recalculation of alimony arrearage.
[2] A trial court's calculation of alimony arrearage is subject to remand when mathematical findings do not support the court's final decision.
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 intelligenceThe former husband's alimony obligation was reduced from $2,650 per month to $500 per month effective May 9, 2014. The trial court calculated the arre…
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. We affirm the order granting the former husband’s petition for modification of alimony. We remand, however, for a recalculation of the alimony arrearage amount. The circuit court determined that the arrearage amount was $9,800 based on a reduction of the former husband’s alimony obligation from $2,650 a month to $500 a month dating back to May 9, 2014. It appears that the total arrearage for the 28-month period should be $14,000. Any basis for further reducing the arrearage amount is not apparent in the record. See Polcz v. Polcz, 160 So. 3d 113, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (case remanded for clarification of arrearages, where “mathematical findings [did] not support the court’s final decision as to a reduction in arrearages”); Allison v. Allison, 605 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (case reversed for clarification of the arrearages amount when it was unclear how the trial court calculated the deduction). GERBER, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allison v. Allison, 605 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Tibor E. Polcz v. Polcz, 160 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)