Third DCA Affirms Laches Defense to Child Support Arrears After a Post-Divorce Reconciliation (Alcalde v. Alcalde, June 2026)

The Third District, in Alcalde v. Alcalde, No. 3D25-1756, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1295 (Fla. 3d DCA June 24, 2026), affirmed a Miami-Dade order that applied laches to deny a former wife's claim for child support arrears covering the years the parties reconciled after their divorce. It is the second appeal in the case. The first appeal, Alcalde v. Alcalde, 340 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), reversed a ruling that the former wife had waived her claim, explaining that a parent cannot waive a child's right to support but that enforcement may be barred by laches, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The facts are specific. The parties divorced in October 2008 under a marital settlement agreement that required $800 per month in child support, stated that the agreement survived any reconciliation or cohabitation, and required any waiver or modification to be in writing. The former husband was current on support when the former wife and children moved back into his home on October 1, 2009. They lived together until June 2015. Afterward, the parties' fourteen-year-old son stayed with the former husband. The former wife first raised unpaid support in a December 30, 2016 petition and moved to enforce arrears back to 2009 in June 2019.

The testimony at the hearing conflicted, and the trial court (Judge Ivonne Cuesta) believed the former husband. It credited his testimony that the former wife told him she was "not going to sweat" him for the $800 because they were living together, and that he paid almost all household and children's expenses, about $3,500 per month. It found he relied on that understanding, kept no records of the in-kind payments, and lost the chance to seek a timely modification even though their son lived mainly with him after the separation. The court barred arrears for the cohabitation period and through December 30, 2016, preserved the former wife's claim for support from that date forward, and found the ruling did not harm either child's welfare.

Writing for the panel, Judge Logue affirmed under the abuse of discretion standard, finding competent, substantial evidence for each element of laches as set out in Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659, 663 to 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002): conduct giving rise to the claim, the claimant's knowledge and failure to act, the defendant's lack of knowledge that the claim would be asserted, and extraordinary injury or prejudice. The court repeated that in child support arrearage cases laches applies only in extraordinary circumstances where the facts clearly show extreme prejudice, and that delay alone is not enough. See also Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Thorman v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199, 1202 to 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).