Case Name: Sarah H. WOOTEN, n/k/a Sarah Winslow, Appellant, v. Robin N. WOOTEN, Jr., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-07-24
Citations: 510 So. 2d 1033
Docket Number: No. 86-2880
Parties: Sarah H. WOOTEN, n/k/a Sarah Winslow, Appellant, v. Robin N. WOOTEN, Jr., Appellee.
Judges: HALL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 1033–1039

Head Matter:
Sarah H. WOOTEN, n/k/a Sarah Winslow, Appellant, v. Robin N. WOOTEN, Jr., Appellee.
No. 86-2880.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 24, 1987.
Christy F. Harris of Harris, Midyette & Clements, P.A., Lakeland, for appellant.
Charles L. Carlton and Harold E. Barker of Carlton & Carlton, P.A., Lakeland, for appellee.

Opinion:
LEHAN, Judge.
An ex-wife appeals from the trial court's order which provided that the ex-husband should receive credit against future child support obligations in order that he could recoup past child support overpayments.
She contends that the trial court erred in finding that overpayments were made and in ordering such recoupment even if there were overpayments. We affirm as to the finding of overpayments but remand for further proceedings as to whether recoupment is in order.
We conclude that the trial court correctly construed the parties' amended settlement agreement to have removed the husband's obligation in the original settlement agreement to increase child support payments in the event of the wife's remarriage at which time alimony would terminate. We agree with the trial court that the matter of increased child support was governed by a provision in the amended agreement specifically providing that the amount of child support fixed in the original agreement would not increase unless there is a change of circumstances not previously considered by the parties. The wife's remarriage was not such a change of circumstances because it was a circumstance specifically considered in the original agreement. That provision was in a section of the amended agreement which specifically said that that section amended paragraph 2 of the original agreement. Paragraph 2 of the original agreement provided for child support. Other, general language in the amended agreement might by itself be construed to the contrary, but that other language did not specifically address the subject of child support and an increase in child support as did the foregoing provision found by the trial court to govern. See Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. v. Bowen Bros., Inc., 223 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Flowers v. Miskoff, 233 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
We do not conclude that the husband's actions in paying increased child support for a period of time, pursuant to a letter from the wife's attorney, following the wife's remarriage should cause a different result. The actions of the parties to a contract may govern the construction of an ambiguous contract, see Flagship National Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc., 485 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 497 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1986), but the trial court did not consider the amended agreement to be ambiguous in the foregoing regard, nor do we. Nor do we conclude that the trial court erred in not finding that the husband was precluded by laches from seeking recoupment. See Be-thea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla.1949).
However, we remand for further proceedings as to whether recoupment should be ordered under all the circumstances, Recoupment for child support overpayments may be proper in given equitable circumstances. See section 61.-13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); Tosh v. Oesterle, 380 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). But the record does not reveal the relevant circumstances here. There was no testimony or other evidence on the basis of which a determination could be made as to whether such recoupment would or would not be equitable.
The judgment is affirmed as to there having been overpayments, but the case is remanded for further proceedings as to whether recoupment is in order.
Affirmed.
HALL, J., concurs.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.