Matteo v. Matteo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matteo v. Matteo

667 So. 2d 1003, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1047, 1996 WL 61143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1996

DocketNo. 95-181

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 1003 (Matteo v. Matteo) 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

Matteo v. Matteo, 667 So. 2d 1003, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1047, 1996 WL 61143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the petitioner below, appeals the denial of the “Petitioner’s Motion to Determine Child Support, Interest, Fees and Costs, Sequester Settlement Proceeds and Determine Priorities With Supporting Memorandum” and “Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and/or Rehearing”. In connection therewith, appellant requests that the post-judgment order, as well as the order denying rehearing, be reversed with this cause being remanded to the trial court for a proper determination of child support arrear-ages, together with accruing interest from the dates of the appellee’s non-payment, as well as an award of the minor child’s medical bills and the appellant’s car payments, together with the appropriate interest accruing from the date of the incurrences of each of those debts.

In view of the fact that the documents and material filed with this Court support the Appellant/Former Wife’s position, and the Court noting that there has been nothing filed with this Court that, in any way, contravenes the Appellant’s arguments and claims, the orders appealed from must, of necessity, be reversed with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as may be necessary, consistent herewith, to afford the appellant the relief sought. See Romans v. Romans, 611 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that a spouse is entitled to pre-judgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date such payments were due until the date of the arrearage judgment along with the interest that accrues following the entry of the ar-rearage judgment); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (same); Melvin v. Melvin, 891 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (same); see also O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So.2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the petitioner below, appeals the denial of the “Petitioner’s Motion to Determine Child Support, Interest, Fees and Costs, Sequester Settlement Proceeds and Determine Priorities With Supporting Memorandum” and “Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and/or Rehearing”. In connection therewith, appellant requests that the post-judgment order, as well as the order denying rehearing, be reversed with this cause being remanded to the trial court for a proper determination of child support arrear-ages, together with accruing interest from the dates of the appellee’s non-payment, as well as an award of the minor child’s medical bills and the appellant’s car payments, together with the appropriate interest accruing from the date of the incurrences of each of those debts.

In view of the fact that the documents and material filed with this Court support the Appellant/Former Wife’s position, and the Court noting that there has been nothing filed with this Court that, in any way, contravenes the Appellant’s arguments and claims, the orders appealed from must, of necessity, be reversed with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as may be necessary, consistent herewith, to afford the appellant the relief sought. See Romans v. Romans, 611 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that a spouse is entitled to pre-judgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date such payments were due until the date of the arrearage judgment along with the interest that accrues following the entry of the ar-rearage judgment); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (same); Melvin v. Melvin, 891 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (same); see also O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So.2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 1003, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1047, 1996 WL 61143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matteo-v-matteo-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack