FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0614

LT Case No. 2019-DR-003464

_____________________________

RACHAEL MORELLI,

Appellant,

v.

SEAN J. BORDELON,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

R. Gregg Jerald, Judge.

Jonathan P. Culver, of Jonathan P. Culver, P.A., Ocala, for 

Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

September 27, 2024

PRATT, J.

Appellant Rachael Morelli appeals the circuit court’s 

supplemental final judgment on child support, which was entered 

after the court partially granted Appellee Sean Bordelon’s petition 

for modification.

We agree with Appellant that the circuit court erred when it 

awarded a child-support modification retroactive to the date of the 

original judgment, rather than to the date of the petition for 
2

modification. See § 61.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022); Carmack v. 

Carmack, 316 So. 3d 396, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[A] retroactive 

child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the date the 

petition seeking modification was filed.”). Here, the petition for 

modification was filed on September 25, 2019. The court lacked 

authority to award a modification retroactive to an earlier date.

Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred by failing to 

include a child support guidelines worksheet in the supplemental 

final judgment. However, Appellant failed to preserve this 

argument by failing to include it in her motion for rehearing. See 

Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (a 

motion for rehearing is required to preserve alleged errors that 

first appear on the face of a final judgment). We will not consider 

this unpreserved argument.

In addition, Appellant contends that the circuit court erred, 

as a matter of due process, by failing to give the Florida 

Department of Revenue notice of—and an opportunity to be heard 

at—the final hearing on Appellee’s petition for modification. For 

this proposition, Appellant cites no authority. Nor does she cite any 

authority for her implicit proposition that she has standing to raise 

on appeal the purported due process rights of a state agency. This 

Court is “under no duty to” give an answer where Appellant 

“merely pos[ed] a question . . . and then dump[ed] the matter into 

the lap of [this Court] for decision.” Lynn v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 

81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955). Instead, “the duty rests upon the 

appealing party to make error clearly appear.” Id. (citing F E C 

News Co. v. Pearce, 58 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1952)). By failing to provide 

any authority for the argument she raises, Appellant has failed to 

carry her burden to demonstrate error.

We affirm, without further discussion, as to all other issues 

that Appellant raises. Therefore, we reverse in part the 

supplemental final judgment as to its retroactivity date, we affirm 

in part as to the other issues raised on appeal, and we remand for 

further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SOUD and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________