Cortina v. Lorie
95 So. 3d 467
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cortina appeals a final order reducing Lorie’s child support arrearages.
- Arrearages vest when due and are generally not subject to retroactive modification.
- Courts recognize a narrow exception requiring pleading and proof of compelling circumstances.
- Lorie answered with defenses: payment, inability to pay in prison, and verbal modification.
- The trial court reduced arrearages based on a reason not pled or supported by evidence.
- This Court reverses and remands for a final order preserving arrearages; references to related incarceration modification standards are noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May arrearages be retroactively reduced without proper pleading? | Cortina argues arrearages cannot be retroactively reduced. | Lorie argues modification is permissible under certain circumstances. | Retroactive reduction not permitted; reversal and remand. |
| Is the trial court’s basis for reduction within pleadings and evidence? | Cortina contends basis was outside pleadings and trial evidence. | Lorie’s asserted grounds were within pleadings but not supported by record. | Basis beyond pleadings/record; improper modification. |
| Were other defenses (payment, inability to pay, verbal modification) properly considered? | Cortina argues defenses were not legally sufficient to justify reduction. | Lorie raised defenses but they were not upheld. | Defenses insufficient; arrearages must remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puglia v. Puglia, 600 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (accrued child support is vested and not retroactively modifiable absent proper procedure)
- Prio v. Barouh, 834 So.2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (vested arrearages generally not subject to retroactive modification)
- Waldman v. Waldman, 612 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (supports notion arrearages are vested obligations)
- State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Brinson v. Evans, 706 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (requires pleading and proof of compelling circumstances for any arrearage modification)
- Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Johnston v. Whiting, 684 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (no reduction without pleading to invoke jurisdiction)
- Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs. ex rel. Newhall v. Smith, 605 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (error where trial court lacked appropriate pleading)
- State, Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs. ex rel. Davis v. Canady, 473 So.2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (need proper pleading to cancel or reduce past due payments)
- Manning v. Varges, 413 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (decree outside pleadings may be voidable on appeal)
- Dep’t of Revenue v. Jackson, not provided in text (Fla. 2003) (incarceration modification standards; accrued prior to filing petition must be paid)