GEORGE A. GUADINE, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN GUADINE, 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.
This case addresses whether a court can enforce a contractual agreement between divorced parents whereby neither party would seek child support modification. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and held that a parent's obligation to support their children is rooted in law, not contract, and cannot be waived by agreement.
The court held that the lower court erred in refusing to implement the master's child support recommendation based on the parties' contractual agreement. A parent's obligation to support their children inheres in the parental relationship and cannot be waived by contract, and courts retain the inherent authority to modify child support regardless of any agreement between the parties.
[1] A parental obligation to support minor children cannot be waived or abrogated by private contract.
[2] Courts retain the authority to modify child support orders, irrespective of any prior agreement between the parties.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 law imposes an obligation on both parents to contribute to the support of their children. This obligation inheres in the parental relationship and cannot be disposed of via contractual agreement.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that child support obligations are statutory and cannot be waived by contract between parents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge and Susan Guadine divorced in 1981, with Susan initially retaining custody and George paying substantial child support. In 1982, the parties ag…
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 Petition For Modification Of Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At issue is whether the lower court erred by failing to implement a master’s recommendation that a mother contribute to the financial support of her two minor children. We reverse.
For approximately one year following the parties’ 1981 divorce, the mother retained custody of the parties’ two minor children. During this time the father paid substantial child support. In 1982, the father assumed custody of the children pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The husband subsequently filed a petition for modification in which he asked the court to order his former wife to contribute to the support of the children. The matter was referred to a general master, who, after a hearing, entered a report finding that the mother had the ability to contribute to the support of her children and recommending a modification which would require her to pay a relatively modest amount in child support.
The mother filed exceptions to the general master’s report. Upon consideration, the lower court rejected the master’s support recommendation on the ground that the parties had agreed in writing that neither would ever petition a court to order the other to pay child support. The lower court concluded that it simply did not have the authority to honor the father’s request for child support in the face of 'the parties’ agreement.
The law imposes an obligation on both parents to contribute to the support of their children. This obligation inheres in the parental relationship and cannot be disposed of via contractual agreement. Nor can any contract divest the courts of their authority to modify child support, for “[ijnherent in a court’s authority is the authority to modify child support — regardless of any agreement between the parties _” Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see also Isaacs v. Deutsch, 80 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1955); Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). “It is also well-settled law ... that a master’s report is clothed with a presumption of correctness and should be approved and adopted by the trial court unless clearly erroneous or unless it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Ben-Hain v. Tacher, 418 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949); Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981). Since the master’s findings herein were supported by competent evidence and because the support recommendation was correct as a matter of law, we reverse and remand with instructions to implement the master’s recommendation.
ANSTEAD, HURLEY and BARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernstein v. Bernstein, 498 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…one parent on the other; rather it is a dual obligation imposed on the parents by the State.” Id. at 800. The authority to modify child support, regardless of any contract between the parents, is inherent in a court’s authority. Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Such a contract [dealing with child support] will be given effect only to the extent that it is in the best interests of the child. Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). If the law does not permit the provisio…
-
Hillman v. Hillman, 567 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…re us it appears that the lower court set support pursuant to the child support guidelines. In setting an amount of child support, it is fundamental that the court must consider the child’s needs and the parent’s ability to pay. Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The child support guidelines, as helpful as they may be to an overburdened court, should not be automatically applied; the court should consider both the needs of the child and the overall financial circumstances of the parties.…
-
Wollschlager v. Alisa C. Veal, 601 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…t examining the needs of the child and the ability of both parents to provide for those needs. Public policy in Florida, however, favors imposing an obligation on parents to contribute to the support of their children. See, e.g., Guadine v. Guadine, 474 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991), the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by failing to impute income for the purpose of child support, reasoning that “[wjhere both parties are f…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Perez v. State, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Gertrude L. Isaacs v. Fay Deutsch, 80 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1955)
- Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Baumann v. S. Brevard Dev. Corp., 466 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Norwood v. Norwood, 466 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)