CHARLES W. STULTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA B. STULTZ, 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 father appeals a trial court order requiring him to continue child support payments for his eighteen-year-old daughter until her high school graduation. The appellate court agrees with the father that Florida law does not permit child support obligations for adult children absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies, and reverses the trial court's order.
A trial court cannot order child support for an adult child absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies. The age of majority in Florida is eighteen, and there is no legal duty to pay child support beyond that age unless the child has physical or mental deficiencies. Any duty to support post-majority high school education is a moral rather than legal one.
[1] Child support obligations terminate upon a child reaching the age of majority, absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies.
[2] A court cannot order child support for an adult child beyond the age of majority without a statutory basis.
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“There is no legal duty to pay child support beyond the age of eighteen — the age of majority in Florida — absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that parents have no obligation to support adult children without a finding of deficiencies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband and wife's daughter turned eighteen on January 4, 1986. The father paid child support through January 1986. The daughter was schedu…
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
RYDER, Judge.
Appellant, former husband, appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to continue child support payments for his eighteen-year-old daughter until that child has graduated from high school. The parties’ child turned eighteen on January 4, 1986. Appellant paid child support through January 1986. The child was to graduate in June of 1986. The trial court’s order included a finding that the child “has an economic dependency and requires continuing support until graduation from high school.” The court ordered child support payments to continue “at least until the child has graduated from high school,” and retained jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. Appellant argues that the trial court cannot order child support for an adult child absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies. We agree and reverse.
There is no legal duty to pay child support beyond the age of eighteen — the age of majority in Florida — absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies. Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1984). The excellent trial judge in this case was obviously well-intentioned in ordering support through the daughter’s high school graduation date. We agree with the trial court’s implicit belief that a parent — divorced or married — should not have to be forced by a court order to provide for his or her child’s education. However, if a legal duty to provide post-majority high school education support is to be created, the legislature is the fountain out of which that legal duty is to spring.
We must follow the holding of the Florida Supreme Court in Grapin:
While most parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education that is increasingly necessary in today’s fast-changing world, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a legal one.
* # * * * 4c
Any reliance on dictum in Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726, 731 (Fla.1975), for the proposition that parents, married or divorced, may be required to pay postma-jority education support based only upon need and the ability to pay is misplaced. The dictum from Finn refers to the societal ideal of continued parental support for the education and training of these children. These statements of concern neither created a legal duty nor provided a new cause of action.
Grapin at 854-55. See also Rollings v. Rollings, 362 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The order requiring appellant to pay child support through his child’s graduation date is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions that the trial court enter an order consistent with this opinion. Appel-lee’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanford R. Solomon v. Sheila A.B. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…of both minor children, whichever shall first occur.” This was error. In the absence of a finding of physical or mental deficiencies, child support for the oldest child should terminate when that child reaches the age of eighteen. Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). ALIMONY The former husband contends that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether to impute income to the former wife for the purposes of determining alimony. We agree. It appears from the fin…
-
Madson v. Madson, 636 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…al obligation, he is under no legal obligation to provide such support. We agree with the husband. Absent a finding of physical or mental deficiencies, there is no legal duty to [*761] pay child support beyond the age of eighteen. Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Even though most financially able parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a legal one, absent either a finding of legal dependence or a binding contr…
-
Thomas F.B. Plant v. Plant, 504 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…emand the cause for the trial court to determine whether Wade was a dependent person entitled to support within the meaning of section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes (1983).2 See Evans v. Evans, 456 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); cf. Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Keenan v. Keenan, 440 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (en banc). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. . We consider paragraph D of the Order as referring to alimony and support rather than [*45] custody. . Section…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1975)
- Grapin v. Bertram Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1984)
- Rollings v. Rollings, 362 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)