Recent Child Support Modification Cases-Florida (2020-2021)
Child support modification in Florida is an area of law that is always changing. The most common issues where change is occurring are related to the factors and grounds for modification, the actual court proceedings, and the amounts and the incidents of the awards. Below are the most recent child support modification cases from appellate courts related to these issues which were decided between October of 2020 and May of 2021.
Materiality of a Change in Circumstances
Arrington v. Arrington – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. April 20, 2021 – 316 So.3d 417
Headline: Father failed to show a modification of his child support obligation was merited when he failed to show his reduction in income was permanent.
Summary of Issue: To prevail on a claim for modification of child support based on a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties, a party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial change in circumstances; (2) the change was not contemplated at the time of the final judgment of dissolution; and (3) the change is sufficient, material, involuntary, and permanent. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13(1)(a).
Villalba v. Villalba – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 28, 2021 – 316 So.3d 366
Headline: Father’s change in living arrangements did not justify modification of child custody.
Summary of Issues: Father’s alleged change in his living situation, that is, that he had been living with his parents and had no extra bedroom for children at the time of final judgment, but subsequently acquired living arrangement with an extra bedroom for children, did not constitute a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying a modification of child custody and child support order. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13(3).
Hilbrands v. Hilbrands – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. May 14, 2021 – 320 So.3d 938
Headline: Divorced father’s allegations of ex-wife’s increased earnings was fact issue precluding judgment on pleadings on child support modification petition.
Summary of Issues: 1) Remarriage generally is not relevant to a child support modification action. 2) An increased ability of the primary residential parent to contribute to the needs of the child may sustain a modification of child support. 3) It is an error to impute additional income to a party based on in-kind contributions from a new spouse where a spouse petitions the court for a child support modification on the basis of remarriage. 4) Remarriage generally is not relevant to a child support modification action. 5) It is an error to impute additional income to a party based on in-kind contributions from a new spouse where a spouse petitions the court for a child support modification on the basis of remarriage.
Proceedings to Modify Child Support
Hilbrands v. Hilbrands – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. May 14, 2021 – 320 So.3d 938
Headline: Divorced father’s allegations of ex-wife’s increased earnings was fact issue precluding judgment on pleadings on child support modification petition.
Summary of Issues: Divorced father’s allegations that his ex-wife’s earnings had increased substantially from the minimum wage imputed to her at the time of dissolution of their marriage due to her employment earnings and additional in-kind support provided by her current spouse presented a factual issue that precluded judgment on the pleadings on father’s petition to modify child support.
Arrington v. Arrington – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. April 20, 2021 – 316 So.3d 417
Headline: Father failed to show a modification of his child support obligation was merited when he failed to show his reduction in income was permanent.
Summary of Issues: 1) The party seeking modification of child support bears the burden of establishing that the requested change is necessary. 2) When the original child support amount rests on an agreement by the parties, there is a heavier burden on the party seeking a downward modification. 3) Father failed to meet his burden to produce sufficient, competent evidence to show that his reduction in income was permanent and, thus, failed to show that a modification of his child support obligation was merited, although the father’s manager testified that father’s income was reduced because of a seasonal slowdown in business and his opportunities for overtime work had decreased; the manager did not address the potential duration or permanency of the impact on father’s work schedule, father’s testimony provided no insight on how long he could expect to experience a reduction of income, and at the time of the hearing, father had experienced a reduction in income for only several months. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13(1)(a).
Gerville-Reache v. Gerville-Reache – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 23, 2020 – 307 So.3d 962
Headline: Competent substantial evidence supported finding that former husband was voluntarily underemployed following his involuntary termination.
Summary of Issues: 1) Competent substantial evidence in child support modification action supported the trial court’s finding that former husband was voluntarily underemployed following his involuntary termination of employment, as required to warrant imputing income to him for child support purposes; there was testimony that before husband’s termination, he had worked for approximately 12 years in the logistics field and had earned between $35,000 and $150,000 but that after husband’s initial job search proved unsuccessful, husband abandoned that search to pursue a career in real estate because it had been an ambition of his in the past, he wanted to own his own business, and it provided him the flexibility to spend more time with his children, and husband earned $38,000 over his first year in real estate. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.30(2)(b). 2) Evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision in child support modification action to impute a salary of $120,000 to former husband, who pursued a new career in real estate after his involuntary termination from his logistic position; even though husband testified that there were available logistics jobs in his area that paid between $120,000 and $130,000, the husband never testified that he could get those jobs but instead testified that he had applied for 50 to 60 logistics industry jobs and had been rejected for all of them and that he was not competitive for those jobs. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.30(2)(b).
Newman v. Newman – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. October 23, 2020 – 310 So.3d 1049
Headline: Alleged agreement between former husband and former wife to waive child support was against public policy, and thus void.
Summary of Issue: Trial court order failed to determine former husband’s current financial situation and child support obligation in wife’s action seeking modification of child support order from marriage dissolution proceeding, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
Retrospective Modification
Carmack v. Carmack – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. April 9, 2021 – 316 So.3d 396
Headline: Circuit court was without authority to impose retroactive child support obligation on former wife.
Summary of Issue: The circuit court was without authority to impose a retroactive child support obligation on the former wife for a time period pre-dating the former husband’s petition to modify temporarily his $943 monthly child support obligation, even though there was substantial evidence to support a modification. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.14.
Lockwood v. Lockwood – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. December 16, 2020 – 308 So.3d 271
Headline: Ex-husband not liable, in modification of temporary support order, for child support arrears preceding the date of initial petition for dissolution.
Summary of Issue: Husband was not liable for retroactive child support arrearage amount preceding the filing date of initial petition for dissolution of marriage; prior to the final judgment of dissolution, temporary child support order awarded retroactive child support from the period beginning after the petition for dissolution was filed, and, pursuant to statute providing date options to which modification of temporary support order may be made retroactive, final judgment of dissolution could not modify retroactive child support figures owed by husband to a date preceding the filing date of initial petition for dissolution of marriage. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.14(11)(b).
Need Help From A Plantation Child Support Lawyer?
As these recent child support modification cases show, child support issues can be complex. Contact us today for a free family law case evaluation. We’ll listen to your case and explain your rights. When you’re ready to work with an experienced Plantation divorce lawyer to help you with your support issues, as well as your custody or modification issues, then please fill out the form on our Contact Us page or give us a call at (954) 880-1302. Our office is located in the heart of Plantation.
Related: How to Successfully Modify Child Support in Florida
These recent child support modification cases are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Florida child support law is always changing. Therefore, we strongly recommend talking with an experienced Florida divorce lawyer to learn your rights.