Castaneda v. Castaneda

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castaneda v. Castaneda

238 So. 3d 442

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2018

DocketNo. 4D16–3431

StatusPublished

This text of 238 So. 3d 442 (Castaneda v. Castaneda) 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

Castaneda v. Castaneda, 238 So. 3d 442 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order granting the former husband's petition for modification of alimony. We remand, however, for a recalculation of the alimony arrearage amount. The circuit court determined that the arrearage amount was $9,800 based on a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,650 a month to $500 a month dating back to May 9, 2014. It appears that the total arrearage for the 28-month period should be $14,000. Any basis for further reducing the arrearage amount is not apparent in the record. See Polcz v. Polcz, 160 So.3d 113, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (case remanded for clarification of arrearages, where "mathematical findings [did] not support the court's final decision as to a reduction in arrearages"); Allison v. Allison , 605 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (case reversed for clarification of the arrearages amount when it was *443unclear how the trial court calculated the deduction).

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order granting the former husband's petition for modification of alimony. We remand, however, for a recalculation of the alimony arrearage amount. The circuit court determined that the arrearage amount was $9,800 based on a reduction of the former husband's alimony obligation from $2,650 a month to $500 a month dating back to May 9, 2014. It appears that the total arrearage for the 28-month period should be $14,000. Any basis for further reducing the arrearage amount is not apparent in the record. See Polcz v. Polcz, 160 So.3d 113, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (case remanded for clarification of arrearages, where "mathematical findings [did] not support the court's final decision as to a reduction in arrearages"); Allison v. Allison , 605 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (case reversed for clarification of the arrearages amount when it was *443unclear how the trial court calculated the deduction).

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 3d 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castaneda-v-castaneda-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack