Florida Court Addresses Challenges To Child Support Orders

You can’t just decide to stop paying child support or pay as much as you please. First, you must petition the court for a change in child support. During your hearing, you must be able to prove two things. First, you must prove that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred to warrant making a modification. You also must be able to prove that the change is permanent in nature and likely to continue into the future. In this article, the Tampa, FL, child support attorneys at Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, will discuss a court case (Shlimbaum v. Eisenstein, No. 4D23-1876 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 25, 2024)) in which one parent contested their child support payments.

Background of the case 

During their dissolution of marriage, the court entered a temporary support order and later contempt orders and money judgments for arrears. The court then entered a partial final judgment that dissolved the marriage, expressly reserving jurisdiction over equitable distribution, alimony, child support, and fees. The court likewise incorporated (but did not merge) the parenting plan, which stated “the prior order regarding expenses remains in effect.”

Two years later, the husband moved to vacate prior support and enforcement orders. He argued they merged into the partial final judgment and were thus void. The trial court agreed and vacated the support orders. The wife appealed the decision.

The issue then became: Did the prior temporary support/enforcement orders merge into the partial final judgment and become unenforceable or void? In addition, there was a question regarding whether Rule 12.540(b)(4) was followed.

The appeal 

In this case, the trial court’s decision was reversed. The support/enforcement orders did not merge and were not void. Relief under Rule 12.540(b)(4) was inapplicable.

Mergers depend on finality. In this case, the judgment reserved jurisdiction over support and incorporated (but did not merge) the parenting plan, which itself kept “the prior order regarding expenses” in effect. So, the earlier support/enforcement orders remained viable.

Rule 12.540(b)(4) relief targets final judgments or orders. Most of the targeted orders were interlocutory, so 12.540 did not apply. Even if it did, the motion was time-barred because the orders were not void.

Conclusion 

Shlimbaum v. Eisenstein reveals the fundamental Florida family law rule that self-executing temporary support and enforcement orders remain valid absent later judgment that clearly and unequivocally replaces them. In holding that a partial final judgment that preserves jurisdiction over support issues does not stay prior orders, the Fourth DCA enforced the merger doctrine narrowly and declined to permit it to be employed to erase arrears or to nullify valid mechanisms of enforcement.

This case also clarifies proper application of Rule 12.540(b)(4) by drawing a bright line of demarcation between orders that are merely erroneous (and subject to timely appeal) and orders that are indeed void for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the court bolstered the security of the enforcement of Florida child and spousal support, preventing parties from reopening settled arrearages years later by procedural devices.

For practitioners, the decision is a warning that reserved jurisdiction has antecedent obligations, and challenges to support orders must be timely and sufficiently pleaded. For Florida law in general, Shlimbaum strengthens the foundation that supports obligations securing needs of minor children stay enforceable and exempt from retroactive nullification absent real jurisdictional fault.

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Family Law Attorney Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa divorce lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.