ETHLYN J. FRIEDMAN A/K/A LYNN J. FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MEYER FRIEDMAN A/K/A MICKEY FRIEDMAN, 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 former wife appealed a trial court's denial of a judgment for child support arrearages after the children reached age eighteen. The court reversed, holding that a custodial parent has a vested right to collect past-due support accrued before emancipation, even though the children subsequently reached majority.
A custodial parent has a vested right to a judgment for child support arrearages accrued prior to emancipation, and this right is not affected by the children becoming adults. The fact that children have reached eighteen is irrelevant to the right to recover past-due support.
[1] A custodial parent has a vested right in child support arrearages that accrued prior to the children's emancipation.
[2] The emancipation of children does not extinguish a custodial parent's right to a judgment for past due child support that accrued before emancipation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 fact that the children have reached eighteen is irrelevant to the right of the custodial parent to a judgment for past due support.”
Establishes the central holding that majority status does not bar recovery of arrearages accrued during the period of minority.
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 wife filed for a judgment for child support arrearages. A general master's report determined she was entitled to this judgment. The trial c…
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 Emancipation cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the former wife from a final order sustaining the former husband s exceptions to a report of the general master which had determined that appellant is entitled to a judgment for child support arrearages. The trial court denied relief to the former wife because the children had reached majority. We reverse.
The fact that the children have reached eighteen is irrelevant to the right of the custodial parent to a judgment for past due support. Newman v. Newman, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 466 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1985).
The cases relied on by the trial court are inapposite. Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke, 415 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (suit for sums accruing after children reached eighteen); Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (parent cannot contract away right of child to support); Wilkes v. Revels, 245 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (contempt remedy not available after child emancipated).
In this case the appellant is not seeking contempt, modification, nor sums due after the children reached their majority. The appellant simply moved for a judgment for sums which had accrued during the period prior to emancipation. In Newman v. Newman, 459 So. 2d at 1129, the custodial parent was found to have a vested right in arrearages accruing prior to emancipation. As a result, a parent’s right to a judgment is not affected by the children becoming adults. We also note that the final judgment of support being enforced had been entered in this case. See Sipe v. Sipe, 492 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Appellee has also alleged an insufficiency of notice of the hearing before the master. However, the record clearly reflects notice. There is no contention of payment, and although appellee notes that the amount of the recommended judgment differs somewhat from the amount of the petition, there has been no transcription made of the master’s hearing. The master’s report is presumed correct and the record fails to support setting it aside. See Ben-Hain v. Tacher, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in accordance with the master’s report.
DOWNEY, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2003)…because the amount of the accumulated support payments adjudicated in connection with the petition for modification will have become due, the trial court may require the obligor to continue making payments toward his debt. See Friedman v. Friedman, 508 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The above policy will result in the most equitable and fair outcome for all concerned. Parents have a legal duty to support their children. See § 61.09, Fla. Stat. (2001); see also, e.g., Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke, 415 So. 2d 738,…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Holland, 602 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…jority enforcement of pre-majority arrearages. This instant case involves post-majority enforcement of posi-majority arrearages and is controlled by Cronebaugh. See also Turner v. Turner, 553 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and Friedman v. Friedman, 508 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). There are several sources for the duty to pay child support. The duty can be strictly legal based on common law or statute (§ 61.13(1), Fla.Stat.) or it can be strictly contractual, or it can be a confusion of both. See, Simpso…
-
Friend v. Friend, 543 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…reverse. The husband had a court ordered obligation to contribute to the support of his children. The child support payments vested in the wife when they became due. Thornton v. Byrnes, 537 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); See Friedman v. Friedman, 508 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). No credit should be given for payments made directly to a child or a third party unless such payments are given in substantial compliance with the support order. Goldman v. Goldman, 529 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The recor…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Cronebaugh v. van Dyke, 415 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Baumann v. Agudelo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Perez v. State, 418 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bogle v. State, 245 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- F.W. v. State, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Newman v. Newman, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Hemminger v. Hemminger, 391 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)