Deese v. Deese

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deese v. Deese

608 So. 2d 558, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12149, 1992 WL 338552

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03606

StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 558 (Deese v. Deese) 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

Deese v. Deese, 608 So. 2d 558, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12149, 1992 WL 338552 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Cathy Jane Deese appeals the amended final judgment on her motion to modify and to establish arrearages for past due child support. We affirm. Although we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in reducing a portion of the arrearage to judgment, we feel the court’s reasoning requires comment.

The record reveals the arrearage judgment was entered as a result of the trial court’s reluctance to assist the former wife in collecting that portion of the arrearage. The trial court’s position is contrary to the intent of section 61.17(3), Florida Statutes (1991). The judgment for arrearage does not preclude the former wife’s right to pursue collection.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

Cathy Jane Deese appeals the amended final judgment on her motion to modify and to establish arrearages for past due child support. We affirm. Although we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in reducing a portion of the arrearage to judgment, we feel the court’s reasoning requires comment.

The record reveals the arrearage judgment was entered as a result of the trial court’s reluctance to assist the former wife in collecting that portion of the arrearage. The trial court’s position is contrary to the intent of section 61.17(3), Florida Statutes (1991). The judgment for arrearage does not preclude the former wife’s right to pursue collection.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 558, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12149, 1992 WL 338552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deese-v-deese-fladistctapp-1992.