Calderon Romero, Yanira Mercedes v. Martinez Echevarria, Carlos Gustavo
KLCE202500081
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Mar 31, 2025Background
- Carlos Gustavo Martínez Echevarría and Yanira Mercedes Calderón Romero are parents to two minors, ANMC and KMMC.
- In November 2022, a permanent child support order was issued, requiring Martínez Echevarría to pay $750/month plus share medical, educational, and extraordinary expenses.
- In July 2024, KMMC began living full-time with Martínez Echevarría due to changes in custody arrangements.
- Calderón Romero filed for contempt against Martínez Echevarría for failing to pay support during the period KMMC resided with him.
- The trial court found Martínez Echevarría in contempt, set a payment plan, and adjusted the support amount prospectively from December 2024, refusing to make the adjustment retroactive.
- Martínez Echevarría sought certiorari, arguing the support adjustment should be retroactive to August 2024, when custody changed.
Issues
| Issue | Martínez Echevarría's Argument | Calderón Romero's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child support modification date should be retroactive to when custody changed | Support should be retroactive to August 2024, as KMMC lived with him full-time | Adjustment should only apply prospectively from the court order date | Modification retroactive to August 2024, aligning with custody change |
| Whether Martínez Echevarría was in contempt for nonpayment during this period | He should not be held in contempt since KMMC was in his exclusive care and he covered her needs | Failure to pay as ordered is contempt regardless of physical custody | Martínez Echevarría not in contempt; contempt order reversed |
| Whether attorney fees for contempt should be imposed | No fees should be imposed since contempt was improper | Fees are appropriate given non-payment | Fee order vacated |
| Whether retroactive adjustment is permissible under local law | Permissible due to extraordinary circumstances (change in custody) | Retroactivity only allowed from order date unless exception applies | Exception applies; retroactive adjustment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Caribbean Orthopedics v. Medshape, et al., 207 DPR 994 (discretionary review by certiorari in family law cases)
- Scotiabank v. ZAF Corp. et al., 202 DPR 478 (criteria for certiorari review)
- Torres Martínez v. Torres Ghigliotty, 175 DPR 83 (prudential factors for appellate intervention)
- Toro Sotomayor v. Colón Cruz, 176 DPR 528 (child's best interests govern support matters)
- Argüello v. Argüello, 155 DPR 62 (core principles of child support law)
- De León Ramos v. Navarro Acevedo, 195 DPR 157 (parents' support duty derives from constitutional right to life)
- Figueroa Robledo v. Rivera Rosa, 149 DPR 565 (public policy and proportionality in child support)
- Díaz Rodríguez v. García Neris, 208 DPR 706 (guidelines for fair and equitable child support modifications)