EDWIN C. CARLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY ANN CURTIS, 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.
Father's appeal from child support order is affirmed except that the trial court's requirement for a $4,800 annual trust fund contribution for the child's education is remanded for clarification because it may improperly provide post-majority support in violation of Grapin v. Grapin.
A trial court's order requiring a father to pay $4,800 per year into a trust fund for a child's education is remanded for clarification to determine whether it improperly provides post-majority support.
[1] A trial court's order requiring a parent to pay funds into a trust for a child's post-majority education may constitute improper post-majority support and requires clarif…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA father appealed various child support rulings concerning his three-year-old child. The trial court ordered the father to pay $4,800 per year for fif…
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
LEHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal by a father from various rulings of the trial court concerning the support of the parties’ three-year-old child. We affirm except with respect to the requirement in the written order that the father pay $4,800 per year for fifteen years into a trust fund to “be primarily used for the education of the child” and which was orally required by the trial court “not to be used except for college, unless emergencies” and which the trial court stated should total about $75,000 “by the time [the child is] ready for college.”
As to that requirement, the father, citing Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1984), argues that the child’s post-majority support is improperly provided for. On the other hand, the mother argues that the written order says nothing about college education and that portions of the transcript of hearing show that the trial judge meant simply to allocate $1,000 per month child support between the $600 per month payments to the wife otherwise required and these $4,800 per year payments which are equal to $400 per month.
We remand for clarification or modification of that requirement. On remand the trial court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may enter an order on the basis of the present record or may require the presentation of additional arguments or evidence.
Affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.