RACHAEL MORELLI
v.
SEAN J. BORDELON
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.
Rachael Morelli appealed a circuit court's supplemental final judgment on child support modification, challenging the retroactivity date and other procedural issues. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that the court erred in awarding child support modifications retroactive to the original judgment date rather than the petition date.
The court held that the circuit court erred in awarding a child support modification retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification, as the court lacked authority to do so under Florida Statute § 61.14(1)(a). The other issues were either unpreserved (guidelines worksheet) or inadequately briefed (Department of Revenue notice).
[1] A child support modification may not be awarded retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition seeking modification.
[2] Failure to include a child support guidelines worksheet in a supplemental final judgment is not preserved for appeal if not raised in a motion for rehearing.
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 intelligence“[A] retroactive child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the date the petition seeking modification was filed.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that child support modifications cannot be made retroactive before the petition date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSean Bordelon filed a petition for modification of child support on September 25, 2019. The circuit court granted the petition in part and entered a s…
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 Child Support Guidelines Worksheet cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-0614 LT Case No. 2019-DR-003464 _____________________________
RACHAEL MORELLI,
Appellant,
v. SEAN J. BORDELON,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. R. Gregg Jerald, Judge. Jonathan P. Culver, of Jonathan P. Culver, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee.
September 27, 2024 PRATT, J.
Appellant Rachael Morelli appeals the circuit court’s supplemental final judgment on child support, which was entered after the court partially granted Appellee Sean Bordelon’s petition for modification.
We agree with Appellant that the circuit court erred when it awarded a child-support modification retroactive to the date of the original judgment, rather than to the date of the petition for
2
modification. See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022); Carmack v. Carmack, 316 So. 3d 396, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[A] retroactive child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the date the petition seeking modification was filed.”). Here, the petition for modification was filed on September 25, 2019. The court lacked authority to award a modification retroactive to an earlier date.
Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred by failing to include a child support guidelines worksheet in the supplemental final judgment. However, Appellant failed to preserve this argument by failing to include it in her motion for rehearing. See Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (a motion for rehearing is required to preserve alleged errors that first appear on the face of a final judgment). We will not consider this unpreserved argument.
In addition, Appellant contends that the circuit court erred, as a matter of due process, by failing to give the Florida Department of Revenue notice of—and an opportunity to be heard at—the final hearing on Appellee’s petition for modification. For this proposition, Appellant cites no authority. Nor does she cite any authority for her implicit proposition that she has standing to raise on appeal the purported due process rights of a state agency. This Court is “under no duty to” give an answer where Appellant “merely pos[ed] a question . . . and then dump[ed] the matter into the lap of [this Court] for decision.” Lynn v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955). Instead, “the duty rests upon the appealing party to make error clearly appear.” Id. (citing F E C News Co. v. Pearce, 58 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1952)). By failing to provide any authority for the argument she raises, Appellant has failed to carry her burden to demonstrate error.
We affirm, without further discussion, as to all other issues that Appellant raises. Therefore, we reverse in part the supplemental final judgment as to its retroactivity date, we affirm in part as to the other issues raised on appeal, and we remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. SOUD and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
3
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Mirror Co., LLC v. THE Jordon Glass Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)