WALTER OLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY OLSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court order that conditioned a father's child visitation rights on payment of past-due child support, holding that such conditions are impermissible under Florida law.
The court held that imposing payment of past-due child support as a condition precedent to the exercise of child visitation rights is impermissible under Florida law, and reversed the trial court's order to the extent it imposed such a condition.
[1] A court cannot condition a parent's child visitation rights on the payment of past due child support.
[2] A court may not condition a parent's right to child visitation on the failure to comply with each and every provision of a final judgment of dissolution.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The imposition of this condition precedent is impermissible.”
The court's core holding that conditioning visitation on child support payment violates Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalter Olson was required to pay child support following the dissolution of his marriage in 1975. The Special Master's report recommended, and the tri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm with one exception the post-decretal order of the trial court adopting, in toto, the Special Master’s report. The Special Master’s report requires Walter Olson to pay an amount of child support determined to be past due as a condition precedent to the exercise of child visitation rights accorded him. The imposition of this condition precedent is impermissible. Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Howard v. Howard, 143 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Accord, Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Cf. Dubocq v. Dubocq, 338 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (court cannot condition husband’s right to temporary custody on failure to comply with each and every provision of final judgment of dissolution). See Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949).1
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions to amend the order approving and adopting the Special Master’s report in accordance with this opinion.
. The wife, relying upon Acker v. Acker, 365 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), argues that a court is empowered to condition the right to child visitation where there is a refusal to pay child support. Acker stands alone in its dicta that “a willful and intentional refusal to pay child support which is detrimental to the welfare of the child” is a basis for terminating child visitation rights. But its alien existence aside, it is inapplicable to a case, as here, where there is neither a showing nor finding of the husband’s obstinacy or ability to pay. Indeed, in the present case the Special Master recommended, and the court approved, a reduction in child support payments based on a substantial decrease in the husband’s earnings since the dissolution of the marriage in 1975.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. Jason, 513 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…een wilful and intentional and detrimental to the welfare of the child so that termination would be in the child’s best interest. ' Implicit in a finding of “willful and intentional refusal” to pay support is the ability to pay. See Olson v. Olson, 398 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) wherein, as in the instant case, the trial court required the husband to pay an amount of past due child support as a condition precedent to the exercise of his visitation rights. The appellate court reversed, holding Acker inappl…
Authorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Howard v. Howard, 143 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Acker v. Acker, 365 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Dubocq v. Dubocq, 338 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- The First Nat'l Bank OF Lake City v. Est. of Minnie S. Young, 338 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)