TRUDY H. LEAIRD, APPELLANT,
v.
BILL DEAN LEAIRD, 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 this child support modification case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the mother's petition to increase child support from $25 to $85 per week, finding the trial court erred in rejecting modification despite evidence of changed circumstances and the father's ability to pay. The court affirmed the denial of college expense assistance, holding that parents have no legal obligation to fund higher education.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the modification petition because changed circumstances and the father's ability to pay supported an increase. However, parents have no legal obligation to furnish a child with a college education, so the denial of college expense assistance was proper. The case was remanded to determine the appropriate increase amount.
[1] A parent does not have a legal obligation to furnish a child with a higher education.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a petition for upward modification of child support when the current award is inadequate, the custodial parent needs the funds, and the non-…
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“a parent does not have a legal obligation to furnish a child, unemancipated or not, with a higher education”
Establishes the core holding that parents have no duty to fund college expenses, citing French v. French
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties divorced on September 13, 1972, and the final judgment awarded the mother custody of their minor child with $25 per week child support. In…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
The parties hereto were divorced on September 13, 1972. The final judgment awarded custody of the parties’ minor child to the appellant wife, together with twenty-five dollars per week for child support. The judgment was silent as to the duration of the child support payments.
On September 24, 1986, the wife filed a petition to modify said judgment by increasing the child support to eighty-five dollars per week and to require the husband to pay a portion of the anticipated college expenses for the child, then sixteen years of age. A financial affidavit filed by the wife showed the child’s expenses were in excess of two hundred and eighty dollars per week and there was evidence of the husband’s ability to pay.
Furthermore, the husband conceded that the weekly award was inadequate to meet the child’s present needs.
Nevertheless, the trial court denied the wife’s request both for increased child support and assistance in meeting his college expenses.
The trial court also declared that the age of majority in this case would be twenty-one, apparently because the final judgment of dissolution predated the enactment of section 743.07, Florida Statutes (1973) (reducing the age of majority to eighteen).
Although confusion seems to abound regarding parents’ obligation to educate their children, this court has held that a parent does not have a legal obligation to furnish a child, unemancipated or not, with a higher education. French v. French, 452 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Several other cases out of this court, dealing only with children over age eighteen, have also concluded that there is no obligation to furnish college expenses. Klein v. Klein, 413 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Genoe v. Genoe, 373 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); French v. French, 303 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
We maintain that the supreme court, in Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1984), while dealing specifically with a post-majority child, stands for the proposition that there is no legal obligation to furnish a child with a college education. While the law recognizes that the duties of a natural guardian to an unemancipated child include the obligation to nurture, support, educate and protect the child, there are other opportunities that can be provided to learn a trade, occupation, or profession other than through a college education. See Kern, 360 So. 2d at 484; § 744.361(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Therefore, although the child had not reached his majority in this case, there was no legal obligation on appellee’s part to furnish the wherewithal to send him to college.
Regarding the petition for upward modification, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying it. The current payment of twenty-five dollars per week was entered when the child was two years old.
The evidence shows that the wife needs the money to support him. The husband concedes the current payment is inadequate.
Finally, the evidence indicates the husband can afford an increase and nothing we find would militate against it. We, therefore, hold that the trial court erred in denying the petition for an increase in the child support. The order appealed from is reversed as to the denial of modification, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings to determine the amount of increase to which the wife was entitled commencing on the date the petition was filed. The order is affirmed as to the court’s declaration that the age of majority in this case was twenty-one; however, it should have specified that the child support payments should continue until age twenty-one, unless the child dies or marries prior thereto.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arce v. Hortensia Arce, 566 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…aside” a sum of money every month to provide for the children's college education. Parents, divorced or not, are not legally obligated to provide their children with a college education. Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla.1984); Leaird v. Leaird, 540 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
-
Walton v. Heni Walton, 657 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…nd be responsible to contribute to the pre-paid college tuition program for the three minor children.” The husband contends that he is under no legal obligation to pay the anticipated college expenses for the minor children, citing Leaird v. Leaird, 540 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), which held that there is no legal obligation to furnish a child with a college education. There is scant evidence in the record concerning the obligation to the prepaid college tuition fund. The husband listed it as a liability…
-
Zakarin v. Zakarin, 565 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ith the fourth district that “the supreme court, in Grapin v. Grapin, while dealing specifically with a post-majority child, stands for the proposition that there is no legal obligation to furnish a child with a college education.” Leaird v. Leaird, 540 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (parent has no legal obligation to provide child, emancipated or not, with college education). This court has held that “[tjhere are many parents who enjoy domestic tranquility but who do not, either from personal choice or…1 / 2
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
- Grapin v. Bertram Grapin, 450 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1984)
- Haddox v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. & Renette Rousseau, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- French v. French, 452 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Genoe v. Violetta Genoe, 373 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Klein v. Klein, 413 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- French v. French, 303 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)