Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the date a petition for modification is filed). The arrearage provision must be corrected and recalculated to include amounts only from August 22,1994. INTEREST The trial court specifically declined to impose interest on the $18,000 the husband was to pay the wife as equitable distribution of the WGL agreement and rejected the wife’s request for interest on the child support arrearage. On appeal, the wife contends interest should have been awarded on the support arrearage and on the $18,000 equitable distribution. We agree that interest should have been awarded on the child support arrear-age. See Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (failure to award prejudgment interest on accrued support arrearage is error); Romans v. Romans, 611 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand for imposition of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that alimony obligation was discharged by social security payments received by the wife (B) holding that it is proper to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the monies were due under the contract (C) holding that because divorce proceedings are civil actions resulting in an order for judgment postjudgment interest was due under the statute on withheld alimony payments (D) holding that a wife with a child from a prior relationship was not entitled to use and possession of the family home (E) holding that wife was entitled to prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages from the date those payments were due
Output (English): holding that because divorce proceedings are civil actions resulting in an order for judgment postjudgment interest was due under the statute on withheld alimony payments