State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Whaley v. Whaley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Whaley v. Whaley

692 So. 2d 1016, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 1997 WL 228671

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3496

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 1016 (State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Whaley v. Whaley) 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

State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Whaley v. Whaley, 692 So. 2d 1016, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 1997 WL 228671 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After our reversal in State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 624 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the trial court, in the order now under review, ap[1017]*1017proved a hearing officer’s decision fixing a judgment for unpaid child support and setting a monthly amount for its repayment. We agree with both of the appellant’s claims for reversal.

1.

Applying the doctrine of laches, the trial court reduced the arrearages by one half of the accrued amount. Laches does not apply, however, both because there was no demonstration that the mother had agreed to a reduction in the father’s obligation, see Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177 (1946); Lang v. Lang, 252 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), and because the appellee was not cog-nizably — that is, non-financially — prejudiced by the delay in securing payment. Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So.2d 399 (1942); Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), cause dismissed, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995); Newman v. Newman, 459 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 466 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see Dean v. Dean, 665 So.2d 244, 249-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(Jorgenson, J., dissenting), review denied, 675 So.2d 926 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, after remand, the judgment of $39,879.98 shall be increased to $79,759.96.

2.

We likewise find no basis for the apparent inadequacy of the $300.00 per month toward the arrearages the appellee was ordered to pay. See § 61.1301(l)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1995); Puglia v. Puglia, 600 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Leone v. Weed, 474 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). As in Puglia, therefore, the cause is remanded for appropriate determination of his ability to make additional monthly payments. See Puglia, 600 So.2d at 486.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After our reversal in State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 624 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the trial court, in the order now under review, ap[1017]*1017proved a hearing officer’s decision fixing a judgment for unpaid child support and setting a monthly amount for its repayment. We agree with both of the appellant’s claims for reversal.

1.

Applying the doctrine of laches, the trial court reduced the arrearages by one half of the accrued amount. Laches does not apply, however, both because there was no demonstration that the mother had agreed to a reduction in the father’s obligation, see Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177 (1946); Lang v. Lang, 252 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), and because the appellee was not cog-nizably — that is, non-financially — prejudiced by the delay in securing payment. Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So.2d 399 (1942); Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), cause dismissed, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995); Newman v. Newman, 459 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 466 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see Dean v. Dean, 665 So.2d 244, 249-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(Jorgenson, J., dissenting), review denied, 675 So.2d 926 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, after remand, the judgment of $39,879.98 shall be increased to $79,759.96.

2.

We likewise find no basis for the apparent inadequacy of the $300.00 per month toward the arrearages the appellee was ordered to pay. See § 61.1301(l)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1995); Puglia v. Puglia, 600 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Leone v. Weed, 474 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). As in Puglia, therefore, the cause is remanded for appropriate determination of his ability to make additional monthly payments. See Puglia, 600 So.2d at 486.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 1016, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 1997 WL 228671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-child-support-enforcement-ex-rel-whaley-v-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack