Viruet v. Grace ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ARMANDO VIRUET,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4058
SARAH G. GRACE,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed August 19, 2016
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Orange County,
Heather Pinder Rodriguez, Judge.
Scott E. Siverson, Orlando, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant Appellant's motion for clarification in part, deny it in part, and substitute
the following opinion in place of the original.
We reverse the portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage that ordered
former husband, Armando Viruet (“Appellant”), to pay $100 per month toward arrearage
in child support because neither the magistrate’s report, which the trial court approved,
nor the final judgment, states the amount of the retroactive child support Appellant owes.
We remand for the trial court to determine the amount of retroactive child support, if any,
that Appellant owes and to enter an appropriate amended final judgment specifying the
amount. Boyd v. Boyd, 168 So. 3d 302, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also § 61.30(17),
Fla. Stat. (2015) ("In an initial determination of child support, . . . the court has discretion
to award child support retroactive to the date when the parties did not reside together in
the same household with the child . . . .").
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motions for new trial
and for rehearing. In his motions, Appellant argued that he should have been afforded
an opportunity to present evidence to establish that, due to the daycare facility used by
the parties requiring him to prepay for the entire week, Appellant was paying all of the
daycare costs, rather than only his proportional share as ordered in the final judgment.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions, but
we do so without prejudice to permit Appellant to bring the matter before the trial court
should he choose to assert that Sarah G. Grace, former wife and Appellee, has not paid
her court-ordered proportional share of daycare expenses.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS.
SAWAYA, TORPY and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
2