Case Name: Jorge GARRIDO Appellant, v. Patricia GARRIDO n/k/a Patricia Martinez, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-07-12
Citations: 221 So. 3d 698
Docket Number: No. 4D15-3677
Parties: Jorge GARRIDO Appellant, v. Patricia GARRIDO n/k/a Patricia Martinez, Appellee.
Judges: Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 221
Pages: 698–699

Head Matter:
Jorge GARRIDO Appellant, v. Patricia GARRIDO n/k/a Patricia Martinez, Appellee.
No. 4D15-3677
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
[July 12, 2017]
Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant. ,
Mark A. Seff and Anna-Maria Capizzi of Seff & Capizzi Law Group, LLC, Hollywood, for appellee.

Opinion:
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 ás of Novembér 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 ar-rearage 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 ar-rearage 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 arrear-age 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.