Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support

When parties sign a settlement agreement in a Florida family law case and then ask the court to ratify the agreement by order, the parties are voluntarily asking the court to uphold an agreement they reached. What if a party feels there was a mistake in the agreement? Can that party file a motion to set aside the agreement and subsequent order of ratification? This was an issue in the case Gjokhila v. Seymour, 1D21-1613 (Fla. 1st DCA October 6, 2022).

As part of their settlement agreement, the parties agreed to a reduction in child support for the father based on the mother’s anticipated future income increase due to her transitioning to a full-time work schedule. The agreement was submitted to the court with a consent signed by both parties which in part stated “They understand that the provisions to which they have agreed may be different than would have been ordered if they submitted their case to the Court, but they instead have freely and voluntarily agreed to be bound by this Agreement.”

Seven months later, the mother moved to set aside the consent judgment based on mistake, inadvertence or surprise, and also based on an argument that the trial court erred in imputing future income to her. The trial court ultimately denied the mother’s motion, holding “Mother has not established her claim of a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect to allow the Court to set aside the Consent [Final Judgment]. The Court did not “impute” an income to Mother. The Court merely adopted . . . Mother’s own assessment of the income she was capable of earning if she worked full time.” The mother appealed.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court. It held “Here, the heart of Mother’s appeal is her argument that ‘the trial court’s entry of the [Consent Final Judgment] was . . . erroneous as a matter of law.’ It is well-established in Florida that a court’s legal errors—such as the one Mother alleges the trial court committed here—are not subject to correction under Rule 1.540(b)(1). See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla. 1990) (‘Mistakes which result from oversight, neglect or accident are subject to correction under rule 1.540(b)(1). However, judicial error such as a mistaken view of the law is not one of the circumstances contemplated by the rule.’) (quotation omitted).”

The court continued “Also, the trial court did not ‘impute’ income to Mother. Imputation is a remedy that a court imposes when a party is voluntarily suppressing his or her earnings. [. . .] Here, the court accepted an earnings level that the parties stipulated to in their mediated settlement agreement. That anticipated income level was based on a reasonable estimate by Mother. The court’s acceptance of that estimated amount was not imputation.”

The court concluded “This proposition—that a court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside a consent judgment that a party freely negotiated and asked the court to enter—is analogous to the doctrine of invited error. ‘Under the doctrine of invited error, a party cannot successfully complain . . . of error for which he is himself responsible, or of rulings that he has invited the trial court to make.’ Alexander v. Quail Pointe II Condo., 170 So. 3d 817, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quotation omitted). In such circumstances, fault is not attributable to the trial court; instead, it is placed upon the party or attorney who led the court into the error.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami child support lawyer to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.