From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beal v. Beal

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 31, 1996
666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Summary

holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award child support retroactively, where record demonstrated child's need, and former husband's ability to pay existed when dissolution petition was filed

Summary of this case from Sumlar v. Sumlar

Opinion

No. 95-1017.

January 31, 1996.

An appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. Ben Gordon, Judge.

E. Jane Brehany of Myrick, Davis Brehany, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

James L. Chase and Keith A. McIver of James L. Chase Associates, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


Timothy J. Beal (husband) and Karen T. Beal (wife) were married on November 4, 1989. Their marriage was dissolved on October 11, 1994. The parties' only child was born on June 24, 1991. The trial judge denied the husband's motion to recuse him, ordered rotating parental custody until the child enters kindergarten, designated the wife the primary residential parent once the child enters kindergarten, and ordered the husband to pay retroactive child support. The judge on rehearing reversed the retroactive child support award. The husband appeals; the wife cross-appeals, raising a number of issues.

We write to address only the issue of retroactive child support. The trial court found that the wife waived her claim to retroactive child support. We however have held: "The law is clear that the parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support. Neither may the mother waive the child's right to support by acquiescing in the father's non-payment of support. Child support is a right which belongs to the child." Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (emphasis added). The trial court thus abused its discretion in failing to award child support retroactively, because the record shows that the child's need and the husband's ability to pay existed at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution. See Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We affirm in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ERVIN, MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Beal v. Beal

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 31, 1996
666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award child support retroactively, where record demonstrated child's need, and former husband's ability to pay existed when dissolution petition was filed

Summary of this case from Sumlar v. Sumlar

holding where record showed child's need and husband's ability to pay existed at time of filing of petition for dissolution, trial court should not have denied retroactive child support on ground that wife waived claim to such support

Summary of this case from Kowal v. Tomlinson

requiring award where "the child's need and the [father]'s ability to pay existed at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Miller

In Beal v. Beal, 666 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this court held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award retroactive child support to the date that the petition for dissolution was filed.

Summary of this case from Bardin v. State Dept. of Revenue
Case details for

Beal v. Beal

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY J. BEAL, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE, v. KAREN T. BEAL…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jan 31, 1996

Citations

666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Sumlar v. Sumlar

Therefore, an award of retroactive child support in some amount is proper. Beal v. Beal, 666 So.2d 1054 (Fla.…

State Dept. of Revenue v. Ortega

The case law is clear that parents may not waive their children's right to support because that right belongs…