BUDDY GENE WILKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA ANN WILKERSON, 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.
In this child support modification appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the trial court's orders but reversed the provision requiring continued child support until age 21, holding that under Florida law applicable to 1975 dissolutions, child support obligations terminate at age 18 absent a finding of dependency, and college attendance alone does not create dependency.
The trial court erred in ordering continued child support until age 21. Under the applicable law for 1975 dissolutions, child support obligations terminate at age 18 absent a finding of dependency, and college attendance does not necessarily create dependency. The other three points raised by the appellant were affirmed.
[1] A trial court errs in ordering child support beyond the age of majority absent a finding of dependency.
[2] Attendance at college does not automatically render a person dependent for purposes of child support.
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“Under these circumstances there is no obligation to support the child after she reaches age 18 absent a finding of dependency, and attendance at college does not necessarily render a person dependent”
Establishes the core holding that child support terminates at age 18 unless dependency is found, and college alone is insufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in 1975. The trial court modified the final judgment to grant the former wife's petition for modification of child support, …
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 Post-Majority Support cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this appeal from a final order modifying the final judgment of dissolution, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting appellee’s petition to modify child support; ordering continued support for the minor daughter to age 21; denying appellant’s motion to terminate alimony; and refusing to allow appellant to post an appeal bond which would operate retroactively to cover all sums including those due before the appellant applied for the bond. No reversible error was committed except as to the second point raised regarding continuing support to age 21 for the minor daughter. The remaining three points are affirmed.
The original dissolution occurred in 1975, thus the applicable age of majority for the children is 18 rather than 21. See Section 743.07, Florida Statutes (1973); Mohammad v. Mohammad, 371 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Under these circumstances there is no obligation to support the child after she reaches age 18 absent a finding of dependency, and attendance at college does not necessarily render a person dependent, see Slaton v. Slaton, 428 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Jones v. Jones, 421 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court thus erred in ordering continued support for the 15 year old daughter until she “reaches age twenty-one (21), marries, dies, or ceases formal education for a period in excess of four months, or otherwise becomes self-supporting.” The cases relied upon by appellee are distinguishable in that they involved pre-1973 dissolutions in which college expenses did not present the problem of post-majority support, see Jones v. Jones, 405 So. 2d 775, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (concurring opinion).
The final order is REVERSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angle v. Angle, 506 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…the Husband shall provide medical insurance which may be reasonably available to the Husband.” We agree. A parent’s legal duty to support children ceases at the age of majority absent a finding of dependency after majority. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 430 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Therefore, on remand, we direct the trial court to strike the provisions of the amended final judgment ordering the husband to provide for medical expenses for the minor child, R…
-
Haskew v. Haskew, 448 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…rity to eighteen, took effect on July 1, 1973. Child support orders entered subsequent to the statute’s effective date cannot, with limited exceptions, require a parent to provide support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 430 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see Jones v. Jones, 421 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Of course, prior to section 743.07’s enactment, child support payments were re--quired until the child reached twenty-one years of age. See Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fl…
-
Reeves v. Reeves, 554 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…; Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Broche v. Broche, 489 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Peeples v. Peeples, 516 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 487 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 430 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Thus, a former husband, absent extraordinary circumstances, cannot be required to maintain some other valuable asset, such as life and medical insurance, for the benefit of his child after the child reaches the age of majority.…
Authorities Cited
- Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Nat'l Comm. FOR Labor Israel, Inc. v. Mann, 371 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Jones v. Jones, 421 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Slaton v. Anne Conant Slaton, 428 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ira Lee Tossie v. State, 405 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)