Soto v. Martinez

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MEDARDO SOTO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) IDA A. MARTINEZ, ) ) Appellee. ) ) ________________________________ ) CASE NO. 2D01-897 Opinion filed June 21, 2002. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Cynthia A. Ellis, Judge. John E. Spiller of Boardman & Spiller, P.A., Immokalee, for Appellant Melinda P. Riddle, Naples, for Appellee. SILBERMAN, Judge. Medardo Soto appeals the final judgment of paternity and child support entered following a trial. We affirm without comment four of the issues raised by Soto, but we reverse that portion of the final judgment that orders him to pay a child care expense of $61 per month. Soto and Ida Martinez, the child's natural mother, were never married to each other. In 1996, their son was born. In 1998, Martinez filed a complaint to establish Soto's paternity of the child, to determine child support, and to recover expenses. The trial court determined that Soto was the child's natural father and was obligated to pay child support and certain expenses. The trial court also made a finding that Soto would not be liable to reimburse Martinez for a child care expense of $61 per month. Nevertheless, in the final judgment the expense was included in the computation of Soto's monthly and retroactive child support obligations. Soto argues, Martinez concedes, and we agree that the final judgment erroneously obligates Soto to pay the child care expense that the trial court found was not reimbursable. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment only as to the award of the child care expense of $61 per month, and we remand for recomputation of Soto's ongoing and retroactive child support obligations without that expense. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., 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.