Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Larsen v. Larsen (fladistctapp, 2007-02-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Larsen v. Larsen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So.2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding the amount imposed to reduce child support arrearages must be reasonable).
discussed Cited "see" Shrove v. Shrove
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So.2d 965, 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Warner, 692 So.2d at 270 ; Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So.2d 524, 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Applegate v. Applegate, 566 So.2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Villaverde v. Villaverde
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Yohem v. Yohem, 324 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So.2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Mary BUTCHART, n/k/a Mary Murray, Appellant,
v.
Clark BUTCHART, Appellee.
84-2518.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 5, 1985.
469 So. 2d 965
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Amy Shield Levine of Levine & Levine, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Harry D. Dennis, Jr., Pompano Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order adjudging both parties in contempt with reference to prior court orders concerning child support and visitation. We reverse that portion of the order which permits the appellee to make monthly payments towards child support arrearages "in lieu of his regular child support" payments. The appellee should be required to keep current with his "regular" child support payments as well as being required to make reasonable payments toward the substantial arrearage he has accumulated. We also hold that the maximum number of prior payments that the trial court could refuse to enforce by contempt were those payments not made in the year immediately preceding the October 24, 1984 hearing. The appellant is also entitled to interest at the legal rate on the amount of arrearage assessed. The balance of the court's order is affirmed. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.