SUZANNE B. AULT, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. AULT, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the wife appeals the trial court's refusal to require the husband to fund private education for their two minor daughters. The appellate court holds that the trial court improperly relied on Thomas v. Thomas in declining to order private school payments and remands for reconsideration without that precedent.
The trial court erred in relying on Thomas v. Thomas because that case is not applicable to these circumstances. The court remands for the trial judge to rule on educational expenses without relying on Thomas, recognizing that child support may include private schooling if the trial court determines it should be provided.
[1] A trial court may err by relying on inapplicable precedent to exercise its discretion regarding child support.
[2] Child support may include private schooling expenses if the trial court determines it is equitable under the circumstances.
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“Such child support may include private schooling if the trial court determines that it should be provided.”
Establishes that private school expenses are a permissible component of child support within the trial judge's discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Suzanne Ault dissolved their marriage. The trial court awarded the wife lump sum and rehabilitative alimony and child support, with both par…
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 Support Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Suzanne B. Ault challenges one of the provisions in a final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to James W. Ault.
In its final order, the trial court awarded the wife lump sum and rehabilitative alimony, child support, and in general arrived at a distribution leaving each party with substantial assets. The wife does not raise any complaint of unfairness other than her argument that the judge erred in refusing to require the husband to continue funding private educations for their daughters, ages twelve and fifteen.
The wife argues that the children have been continually enrolled in private schools thus demonstrating a need and an expectation that they will continue receiving a private education. She also points out that the husband, who is a fifty-six-year old practicing attorney, is receiving a substantial annual income, while she allegedly is not in a position to fund her children’s private education. The husband, on the other hand, asserts that this is a matter within his discretion and that it would be improper for the court to require him to pay for private schooling. He submits that Thomas v. Thomas, 377 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), supports his position.
In his order, the trial judge noted that he was not requiring the husband to pay for private schooling for the children, pursuant to the authority of Thomas. In Thomas the husband was a former Episcopal priest, whose net income at the time of the dissolution was $12,000. The parties’ minor child was receiving a free education at a private school because of the father’s prior affiliation with the school. The trial court’s final judgment required the husband to maintain his child in a private school. However, the Third District agreed with the husband’s contention that he would be unable to meet these expenses in the future and held:
We modify the requirement that the appellant supply the cost of private schooling to read that he shall furnish private schooling only so long as it is on a gratis basis because of his prior affiliation with the private school, but that he shall not be required to provide the private schooling at his expense.
377 So. 2d at 1010.
Thomas does not apply to the present case, and the trial judge here erred in relying on it as authority for his holding. We do not reach the issue of whether the judge erred in not requiring the husband to pay for his children’s private schooling. We are only saying that Thomas is not applicable and, thus, it was not proper for the trial judge to have relied on .it in the exercise of his discretion.
Determining the amount of child support rests primarily in the discretion of the trial judge. The court may order either or both parties to a dissolution proceeding to pay child support in an amount which is equitable in light of the circumstances of each party and the nature of the case. § 61.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1981); Peak v. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Such child support may include private schooling if the trial court determines that it should be provided. See Fox v. Haislett, 388 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we strike that part of the final judgment which reads: “The Court is not requiring Respondent to pay for private schooling for the minor children [under authority of Thomas].” We remand with directions to the trial court to rule on educational expenses without relying on Thomas.
OTT, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. Matthews, 677 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…chool in order to minimize disruption of their lives caused by parties' separation); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (private school tuition payable in accordance with the children’s customary standard of living); Ault v. Ault, 431 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (private school expenses payable where the noncustodial parent was a practicing attorney with a substantial annual income and children had been attending private schools during the marriage); Fox v. Haislett, 388 So. 2d 1261 (Fla.…
-
Luskin v. Luskin, 492 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…mp costs, and these expenses are in accordance with the family’s customary standard of living and are in the children’s best interests, they may properly be awarded as support. See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Ault v. Ault, 431 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hendry v. Hendry, 340 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the wife’s motion to compel and remand for reconsideration of this matter in accordance with the principles set forth…
-
Martin v. Martin, 480 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ince kindergarten, and is obviously college bound and beyond. The trial judge said he would not require appellant to pay the private school costs, although he could have done so. See Haass v. Haass, 468 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Ault v. Ault, 431 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jelke v. Jelke, 233 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3rd DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1970). This was a recognition by the trial court that for this child living in downtown Chicago, private school expenses were a reality and necessit…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peak v. Ewell A. Peak, 411 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- FOX v. Benton Myron Haislett, 388 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 377 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)