EMILIE S. PETRUCCI, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK R. PETRUCCI, 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.
The court held that unpaid child support arrearages are a vested right and cannot be retroactively modified or reduced by crediting payments for college expenses.
A divorced wife appealed an order that reduced child support arrearages by crediting the husband for payments made for the children's college expenses…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the divorced wife of appellee, has prosecuted this appeal, in proper person, to review those portions of an order reducing child support arrearages by crediting the husband with payments made for the two children’s college expenses and staying execution upon the judgment under certain conditions, such as remaining current in his payments. The order was entered after hearing on the ex-wife’s motion for entry of judgment on child support ar-rearages.
We note that the parties had appeared before this court in Petrucci v. Petrucci, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 516.
A settlement agreement was incorporated into the final divorce decree and it dealt with child support and possible college expenses. Certain arrearages had previously been reduced to judgment.
In Florida, the unpaid child support constitutes a vested right not subject to modification. Therefore, the court erred in ordering a reduction of accrued child support. Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 205; Gottesman v. Gottesman, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 640, 642; see generally, “Retrospective modification of, or refusal to enforce, decree for alimony, separate maintenance or support,” 6 A.L.R.2d 1277 (1949).
Appellant next objects to that part of the court order which withheld enforcement of the judgment upon certain conditions. We have considered the briefs and oral argument as to this issue, and express the view that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
For the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed, except as to that part which allows the ex-husband credit for any payments made toward the college expenses of either or both of the children.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…f the payments by legal process and by such equitable remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary. Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So. 2d 557 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So. 2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). In his brief Ollie takes no issue with this statement of the law, but contends that under certain compelling or extraordinary circumstances, the trial court would be justified in refusing to enforce the payment of past due install…
-
FOX v. Benton Myron Haislett, 388 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…r of child support. The first rule which the trial judge should have recognized is that he has no authority to cancel or reduce a past-due installment of child support. Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442, 182 So. 762 (1938); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Modification of child support provisions may not be retrospective in application. Therefore, the trial judge erred in relieving the father of any obligation to pay those educational expenses at the Carrollton School already incur…
-
Dina Teta v. Teta, 297 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…which amount to exceptions, to cancel or retrospectively reduce the decree as regards past due installments. Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442, 182 So. 762 (1938); Gottesman v. Gottesman, 220 So. 2d 640 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1969); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So. 2d 867 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1971); and Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So. 2d 557 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1973). We recognize that in some cases there may be extraordinary facts (such as laches or es-toppel, waiver, reprehensible conduct on the part of the parent having custody or o…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1938)
- Gottesman v. Gottesman, 220 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Emilie S. Petrucci v. Petrucci, 199 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)