Kroft v. McDowell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kroft v. McDowell

636 So. 2d 185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4148, 1994 WL 159815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-3103

StatusPublished

This text of 636 So. 2d 185 (Kroft v. McDowell) 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

Kroft v. McDowell, 636 So. 2d 185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4148, 1994 WL 159815 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order which denied her request for an award of interest which had accrued through the date of the trial court’s order determining that appellee was in arrears in his child support obligation in the amount of $10,452.50. Appellant was clearly entitled to interest on each overdue payment from the date it became due until the date of the order determining the amount of the arrearage. E.g., Romans v. Romans, 611 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Holt v. Holt, 596 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court award appellant interest on the past-due child support obligations from the date that each became due to the date of its order determining the amount of the ar-rearage.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order which denied her request for an award of interest which had accrued through the date of the trial court’s order determining that appellee was in arrears in his child support obligation in the amount of $10,452.50. Appellant was clearly entitled to interest on each overdue payment from the date it became due until the date of the order determining the amount of the arrearage. E.g., Romans v. Romans, 611 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Holt v. Holt, 596 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court award appellant interest on the past-due child support obligations from the date that each became due to the date of its order determining the amount of the ar-rearage.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 So. 2d 185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4148, 1994 WL 159815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroft-v-mcdowell-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack