Beal v. Beal

666 So. 2d 1054, 1996 WL 35089
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 31, 1996
Docket95-1017
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 666 So. 2d 1054 (Beal v. Beal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054, 1996 WL 35089 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

666 So.2d 1054 (1996)

Timothy J. BEAL, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
Karen T. BEAL, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 95-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 1996.

E. Jane Brehany of Myrick, Davis & Brehany, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

James L. Chase and Keith A. McIver of James L. Chase & Associates, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy J. Beal (husband) and Karen T. Beal (wife) were married on November 4, 1989. Their marriage was dissolved on October 11, 1994. The parties' only child was born on June 24, 1991. The trial judge denied the husband's motion to recuse him, ordered rotating parental custody until the child enters kindergarten, designated the wife the primary residential parent once the child enters kindergarten, and ordered the husband to pay retroactive child support. The judge on rehearing reversed the retroactive child support award. The husband appeals; the wife cross-appeals, raising a number of issues.

We write to address only the issue of retroactive child support. The trial court found that the wife waived her claim to retroactive child support. We however have held: "The law is clear that the parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support. Neither may the mother waive the child's right to support by acquiescing in the father's non-payment of support. Child support is a right which belongs to the child." Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (emphasis added). The trial court thus abused its discretion in failing to award child support retroactively, because the record shows that the child's need and the husband's ability to pay existed at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution. See Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We affirm in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ERVIN, MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CRISTINA KIRTLEY v. Florida Department of Revenue
221 So. 3d 1267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Department of Revenue ex rel. R.S.M. v. B.J.M.
127 So. 3d 859 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Camus v. Prokosch
919 So. 2d 679 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Sumlar v. Sumlar
827 So. 2d 1079 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Miller v. Miller
826 So. 2d 480 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Kowal v. Tomlinson
780 So. 2d 172 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Bardin v. State, Dept. of Revenue
720 So. 2d 609 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Carbonaro
712 So. 2d 1225 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
State Dept. of Revenue v. Ortega
682 So. 2d 589 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Morris v. Morris
672 So. 2d 622 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 So. 2d 1054, 1996 WL 35089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beal-v-beal-fladistctapp-1996.