THOMAS F.B. PLANT, APPELLANT,
v.
MYRNA PLANT, 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 family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order on pending motions but reversed and remanded the denial of the wife's motion to modify child support for their son Wade, who turned 18 before completing high school, to allow the trial court to determine whether Wade qualifies as a dependent person entitled to support under Florida Statutes § 743.07(2).
The court affirmed the trial court's Order on Pending Motions as to all points raised by appellant, but reversed the portion denying the wife's motion for modification of child support for Wade and remanded 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).
[1] A court may require support for a dependent person beyond the age of 18 years, notwithstanding the removal of the disability of nonage.
[2] A child who reaches the age of eighteen prior to completing high school may be considered a dependent person entitled to support.
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“Finding no merit in any of the points raised by appellant, we affirm the trial court's Order on Pending Motions.”
The court's affirmance of the trial court's order on the principal issues presented by appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas and Myrna Plant were parties to a family law dispute involving pending motions. Their son Wade reached the age of eighteen prior to completing …
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 Age Of Majority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding no merit in any of the points raised by appellant, we affirm the trial court’s Order on Pending Motions.1 Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Brown v. Brown, 484 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Massey v. Massey, 443 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Albert v. Albert, 186 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); see Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (ambiguities in support provisions of settlement agreement are interpreted according to the best interests of the children involved).
We reverse, however, that portion of the Order denying the wife’s motion for modification of child support for the parties’ son Wade, who reached the age of eighteen prior to completing high school, and remand 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 custody.
. Section 743.07, Fla.Stat. (1983), states:
743.07 Rights, privileges, and obligations of persons 18 years of age or older.—
(1) The disability of nonage is hereby removed for all persons in this state who are 18 years of age or older, and they shall enjoy and suffer the rights, privileges, and obligations of all persons 21 years of age or older except as otherwise excluded by the State Constitution immediately preceding the effective date of this section and except as otherwise provided in the Beverage Law.
(2) This section shall not prohibit any court of competent jurisdiction from requiring support for a dependent person beyond the age of 18 years; and any crippled child as defined in chapter 391 shall receive benefits under the provisions of said chapter until age 21, the provisions of this section to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Marriage of Davis Spencer Earnhardt v. Janeth W. Earnhardt, 533 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…eighteen upon his graduation from high school without finding that child is dependent reversed and cause remanded for court either to strike the award or make a specific finding of fact which would support the requirement); see also Plant v. Plant, 504 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); but see Carter v. Carter, 511 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Keenan v. Keenan, 440 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Nonetheless, we must reverse the amount of the support award.…
-
Carter v. Jonalene Carter, 511 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…lusion to be the law of Florida! Such reasoning approaches bootstrapping. In seeking out supports for reversal, the majority has located a newly decided case of which neither the majority nor this writer was previously aware, namely Plant v. Plant, 504 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). I leave it to the reader to determine whether the following statement of the majority is correct: “It is difficult to determine from the limited facts set forth in Plant whether it conflicts with the present case.” Plant says,…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Massey v. Cleveland Massey, 443 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Adolphus Daniel Evans v. Rhoda Rea Evans, 456 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- In re The Marriage of June B. Keenan v. Keenan, 440 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Brown v. Brown, 484 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Avatar Props., Inc. v. Yerke, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Albert v. Albert, 186 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)