JORGE GARRIDO vs PATRICIA GARRIDO n/k/a PATRICIA MARTINEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JORGE GARRIDO, Appellant, v. PATRICIA GARRIDO n/k/a PATRICIA MARTINEZ, Appellee. No. 4D15-3677 [July 12, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Merrilee Ehrlich, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE07-08800 (40). Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Mark A. Seff and Anna-Maria Capizzi of Seff & Capizzi Law Group, LLC, Hollywood, for appellee. GERBER, C.J. The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment denying the former husband’s request for downward modification of his child support obligation. The former husband raises several arguments, but only one argument has merit – that the trial court incorrectly increased the child support arrearage by $15,000, presumably due to a mathematical error. The former wife appropriately concedes this error. We agree and reverse on this argument only. In the final judgment, the circuit court indicated the child support arrearage was previously established in the sum of $94,780 as of November 17, 2014. The court added $15,000 in arrearage for the months of December 2014 through May 2015. Then the court added $5,000 in arrearage for the months of June 2015 and July 2015. The sum of these three amounts ($94,780 + $15,000 + $5,000) equals $114,780. However, the final judgment indicates that the sum of these three amounts is $129,780. Thus, the final judgment incorrectly determined that the arrearage was $15,000 more than the actual arrearage. This $15,000 error requires correction of the final judgment on this error only. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment only to correct the final judgment to show a child support arrearage of $114,780. On the former husband’s remaining arguments, we affirm without further discussion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of final judgment consistent with this opinion. GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 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.
