GLENN SCOTT RODRIGUEZ vs NICOLE STEPHANNIE FELICIA RODRIGUEZ

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 GLENN SCOTT RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2404 5D17-3474 NICOLE STEPHANNIE FELICIA RODRIGUEZ, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 1, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge. Nikie Popovich, of Popovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Chad A. Barr and Heather M. Kolinsky, Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Appellant challenges the amended final judgment for dissolution of marriage and the post-final-judgment income withholding for child support and alimony order (“IWO”). Having carefully reviewed the record and the briefs filed, we affirm the amended final judgment without further discussion. There are, however, two errors in the IWO that Appellee concedes should be corrected. First, Appellant was ordered in the amended final judgment to pay Appellee the sum of $4500 per month in durational alimony through July 1, 2032, but the IWO does not presently provide a date for Appellant’s employer to discontinue its withholding and remittance of money from Appellant’s pay check once Appellant’s durational alimony obligation ends. Second, the IWO contains an incorrect date for when Appellant’s child support payment is to be reduced once his obligation to pay support for the parties’ eldest child ends. The parties acknowledge that the present date of May 31, 2020, in the IWO is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect the date of May 31, 2019. Accordingly, we affirm the amended final judgment for dissolution of marriage in all respects but remand for the entry of a corrected IWO consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions. EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.