LUCAS PEREZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM
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.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's termination of durational alimony, finding that the term "non-modifiable" in the marital settlement agreement was insufficient to overcome the statutory termination upon remarriage.
The appellate court held that the term "non-modifiable" in a marital settlement agreement for durational alimony was insufficient to clearly and unambiguously overcome the statutory termination of alimony upon remarriage.
[1] Child support may be awarded retroactive to the date parents last resided together with the child, not exceeding twenty-four months preceding the petition's filing.
[2] A court may deviate from the minimum child support award based upon the particular parenting plan or time-sharing schedule.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 parties' marital settlement agreement stipulated non-modifiable durational alimony. After the recipient remarried, the payor sought to terminate a…
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
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 25, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-417 Lower Tribunal Nos. 13200003926FC, CS No. 2001504905
________________
Lucas Perez,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. Lucas Perez, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee), Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Florida Department of Revenue. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. EMAS, J. ON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR Lucas Perez appeals from a final administrative support order rendered by the State Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The order established the length of retroactive child support (twenty-three months), calculated the total amount of retroactive child support ($6,032.58), and credited Perez for payments made during the retroactive period ($163.50). We conclude that the order, and the calculations and determinations contained in that order, are supported by the record, and that the commencement date for calculating retroactive support (December 1, 2018) was proper, because it was after the parties had separated and were no longer residing together with the child. See § 61.30(17), Fla. Stat. (2021) (providing: “In an initial determination of child support, whether in a paternity action, dissolution of marriage action, or petition for support during the marriage, the court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with the child, not to exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition.”) However, and as the Department of Revenue properly and commendably concedes, the Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan was not incorporated into the final support order as required, see § 409.2563, Fla. Stat. (2021) (requiring the Department of Revenue to include a copy of the Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan when serving the Notice of Proceeding to Establish Administrative Support Order), and further concedes that Perez may be entitled to a deviation from his current support obligation based upon the parenting plan. See § 61.30(11)(a)10, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“The court may adjust the total minimum child support award, or either or both parents' share of the total minimum child support award, based upon . . . the particular parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the parties, such as where the child spends a significant amount of time, but less than 20 percent of the overnights, with one parent, thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the other parent; or the refusal of a parent to become involved in the activities of the child.”) We therefore reverse that portion of the order on appeal establishing Perez’s current support obligation, and remand this cause to the lower tribunal for the specific purpose of incorporating the standard parenting time plan and to determine, in light of that parenting time plan, whether a deviation from the minimum child support award is appropriate. The order is, in all other respects, affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.