also that DOR’s unreasonable delay in seeking an arrearage determination after the vacation of the May 2003 order militated against establishing arrearages in 2011. The court found that the father’s circumstances had changed during the period of these doctrines to the facts in the record, without voicing any objection concerning the procedural propriety of taking these doctrines into account. However, we find preserved, reversible error under DOR’s remaining arguments. A trial court’s application of the doctrines of either laches or equitable es-toppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion, provided that there is competent, substantial evidence for each element of the doc trine applied. See Sun Cruz Casinos, L.L.C. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 844 So.2d 681, 684-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204, 206 (Fla.
holding that a district courtsfinding of equitable estoppel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel