Articles Posted in Child Support

Published on: | by

A couple’s long-running legal battle over child support will run a while longer, as the 3d District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling that would have closed the case. The appeals court instead sent the case back, ruling that the trial court should have heard additional evidence, and issued an award, regarding the interest that accrued on the father’s support arrearage from the time the court issued an order in April 2010 until the husband paid off the pre-interest balance in August 2012.

The issue of child support following the divorce of Nivia and Albert Lascaibar was a long-running dispute, making its way through the courts in South Florida for a period of two decades. By 2010, a magistrate calculated the father’s child support arrearages to be in excess of $82,800. The magistrate also stated that “interest has and shall continue to accrue on any outstanding arrearage.” After the father paid off that $82,800 sum, the trial court declared the case closed.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In today’s world, personal and professional situations often dictate that individuals and families do not stay in one place forever. You may have lived in one state, and within a few years, you, your ex, and your children may have all moved away. When this happens, the rules of jurisdiction may limit what court may issue rulings on your case. A mother who had not lived in Florida since before she got divorced was able to get a court order modifying her ex-husband’s child support obligation thrown out recently based on these rules. Since the couple’s divorce and child support order came from California, and the mother had not done any of the acts required to give Florida courts jurisdiction over the case, the 5th District Court of Appeal decided that the Florida modification order was invalid.

A. (wife) and R. (husband) married in Florida and had one child born here in 2000. Soon after the child’s birth, the family relocated to California. The couple eventually divorced, obtaining a California judgment in 2005. That California resolution included a child support order relating to the couple’s child. In 2008, the father, who had returned to Florida, asked a court here to domesticate the California judgment, which means making the decision valid and recognizable in Florida. The father also asked the court to modify his child support obligation. The court agreed and entered the order.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

For many students who go from high school directly to full-time college attendance, continued financial dependence on their parents is an economic reality. Realizing this, many divorcing parents address what happens to child support in the event that a child goes to college. Understanding exactly what your marital settlement agreement says on this issue is extremely important, since even seemingly minor variations in the agreement’s language can yield substantially different results. In one recent 4th District Court of Appeal case, the court terminated a father’s child support for a child who lived on campus at the University of Florida because the couple’s agreement required that the child was “living at home” with the mother, not just maintaining a permanent residence at the mother’s home and residing there during school breaks.

In 2004, couple in this case finalized their divorce. The spouses had reached a marital settlement agreement, which addressed child support. The father agreed to continue paying support on any child until that child’s 21st birthday if the child was attending college and living at home with the mother.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A magistrate judge modified a husband’s child support obligation, in part, due to the magistrate’s own opinions about the wife’s true income as a nail salon worker, in addition to relying on outside sources like an IRS tax guide. Because these were not proper bases for making a determination, the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s ruling favoring the husband.

When this Florida couple divorced, their marital settlement agreement that listed several events that would terminate the father’s child support obligation for the couple’s two children, including eighteenth birthdays and high-school graduations.

After the couple’s son turned 18 in 2008 and graduated from high school in 2009, the husband asked the trial court to modify his child support based upon the changes regarding the son’s status. As part of this hearing, the magistrate judge received evidence from both spouses regarding income. The wife, who worked in a nail salon, testified under oath about her income. The magistrate, using her knowledge from three decades of patronizing nail salons and overseeing family law cases in Palm Beach County, concluded that the wife’s testimony was not truthful. The magistrate, based upon these conclusions and her taking judicial notice of an IRS tax guide and another resource, imputed extra income to the wife and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s determinations.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A husband succeeded used a procedural basis to persaude the 4th District Court of Appeal that it should revive a reduction of his child support. The appeals court concluded that the husband was correct that the man’s ex-wife’s trial court motion, which sought to reinstated his original, higher support obligation, was filed too late and should have been rejected as untimely by the trial court.

This family law dispute arose after the husband suffered a decrease in income and asked a Palm Beach County Circuit Court to reduce his child support obligation. On Feb. 3, 2012, the court granted that request. Two and one-half weeks later, the wife asked the trial court to vacate the support modification order. The trial court initially ruled that the wife made her request too late, but ultimately decided to consider her request and vacated the previous order, thus reinstating the husband’s original child support obligation.

The husband appealed, arguing that the wife did not submit her motion in a timely manner. He also appealed the trial court’s order denying his request to disqualify the trial court judge assigned to his case. The 4th DCA agreed with the husband regarding the timeliness of the wife’s motion. The crux of the wife’s argument before the lower court was that the rules gave her an extra five days in which to file and, factoring those days in, she submitted her motion on time. The appeal court, however, determined that the wife was not entitled to the extra five days she attempted to claim. The five-additional-day rule only applied to litigants whom the court’s order demanded that they take some action within a specific period of time.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

An ex-husband successfully secured primary physical custody of the four children he shared with his ex-wife, but failed to persuade a trial court to order his ex-wife to pay child support on all four children. That’s because a governmental agency already paid a monthly stipend for the fourth child and, since the trial court’s custody modification order gave that stipend to the husband, a Florida appeals court determined that it was not improper to refrain from making the ex-wife pay child support on that child.

J.L.B. and his wife, S.J.B., divorced in 2008. Initially following the divorce, the wife held primary physical custody of the children. Following an incident in which the Florida Department of Children and Families removed the couple’s children from the wife’s home, the husband asked an Orange County court to give him sole custody of the children or, at least, make him the primary physical custodian. The court agreed and ordered that the husband receive majority time-sharing within a joint custody arrangement.

As part of this ruling, the court also assessed a child support obligation to the wife. The husband promptly appealed the child support portion of the court’s ruling. The husband argued that the trial made an error by calculating the wife’s support obligation based on three children, when the couple shared custody of four children.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Resolving issues of back-owed child support can require creative problem-solving between the parties. Sometimes, that creativity may run afoul of the law if it impairs child’s legal right to receive support. One couple’s solution, which converted back-owed child support into a money judgment in favor of the wife and stripped the family court of jurisdiction over that judgment, did not violate the law, according to a recent 4th District Court of Appeal ruling. Because the agreement only removed the family court’s jurisdiction, and did not prevent the wife from pursuing the debt in civil court, the settlement did not contract away the child’s right to support.

The marriage of two attorneys ended in divorce in 1999. The agreed judgment between the parties required the husband to pay child support of $1,300 in 1999 and $1,500 starting in 2000, even though the applicable child support guidelines called for only $828 per month.

The husband fell behind on his support payments, resulting in several contempt proceedings and judgment enforcement motions. The couple eventually settled this dispute and the trial court entered an agreed order in 2008 that included a money judgment of $70,000 plus interest in favor of the wife. The family court also relinquished jurisdiction over that money judgment, except that the court retained the power to use its contempt powers if the husband did not stay current on the $828 per month of child support required by the guidelines.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Russian mother’s effort to pursue an award of child support hit a snag when a Florida appeals court concluded that a Russian court should hear her claim. The Russian courts already had jurisdiction over issues of custody, visitation and time-sharing regarding the child, making them a more convenient forum for the hearing of the child support issue. In a recent case, the court determined that, while courts will generally favor the forum choice of the filing party in cases involving domestic parents, this rule does not apply if the parent filing the case is not a resident of the United States.

The case regarded the child that a couple had together in Russia 17 years ago. In 2012, the mother launched an action in Florida to assess paternity and receive an award of child support. The father sought to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that because the mother was a resident of Russia with few to no ties to Florida, a Russian court would be better positioned to hear the case. Forum non conveniens is a legal doctrine allowing a court to dismiss a case if, in the court’s discretion, another court could more conveniently try the case. The trial court denied the motion.

The court of appeals sided with the father. In general, the court explained, the person who files the action (the mother in this case) is entitled to a presumption in favor of the court she chose. This presumption does not exist, though, if the person filing the action is from another country. Even if Florida was an inconvenient forum to hear the mother’s child support claim, the case would have stayed here if no other court constituted an adequate alternative. The court of appeals, however, concluded that the Russian courts were such a viable alternative. The court noted that the Russian courts already had jurisdiction over the custody, visitation and time-sharing regarding the child.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A father’s attempt to avail himself to statutorily-dictated child support modification failed due to an earlier decision the man made, which ultimately proved costly. The man had previously consented to a marital settlement agreement that contained a waiver of his right to seek a child support modification based upon the parents’ time-sharing schedule, according to the Second District Court of Appeal. The father’s unfavorable decision spotlights the extreme importance of understanding all the ramifications of the terms of a settlement agreement.

Two years after a couple divorced in 2003, the couple created a supplement to their marital settlement agreement that altered the husband’s child support and alimony payments, and specifically stated that the agreement’s visitation arrangements could not be construed as the children’s spending 40% of their time with the father. This percentage was important to clarify, because Section 61.30(11)(b)(10) of the Florida Statutes allows a parent to seek a modification of his child support obligation if his children spend 40% or more of their overnights with him.

In 2012, the father requested a downward adjustment in his child support based upon the alleged fact that the children spent 42% of their time with him. The mother argued that, under the terms of the supplemental settlement agreement, the father waived his right to seek such a reduction.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Florida appeals court recently ruled that the interests of “justice and … equity” necessitated requiring an ex-husband to pay his ex-wife’s attorney’s fees in the child support action the wife initiated. The court’s ruling highlighted that, because the husband had a substantially greater ability to pay, and prolonged the trial court litigation through his failure to engage in full and prompt disclosure of his wealth, an award of attorney’s fees was proper under the statutory law.

The dispute began five years after the parents of two children divorced in 2005. The couple’s marital settlement agreement required the husband to pay family support in a flat amount from 2005-2010, and in accordance with the Florida guidelines thereafter. Unable to reach a negotiated agreement in 2010, the couple returned to court to determine the new amount of support. Despite having a net worth of nearly $5 million, the husband told the trial court he had little to no income. The trial court ultimately concluded that the husband had a monthly income of $25,000 and the wife’s income was less than $3,800.

The Orange County Circuit Court ordered the husband to pay $2,608 per month, but declined the wife’s request for an award of attorney’s fees. The trial court concluded that the wife’s 2010 action was an enforcement action related to the settlement agreement, and Florida law directed that she not receive attorney’s fees.
Continue reading ›