KAREN FRIEND, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER FRIEND, 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 credit against child support arrearage should not be given for payments made directly to children unless those payments were made in substantial compliance with the support order.
Husband owed child support arrearage to wife. He sought and received a credit from the trial court for payments made directly to his adult children. T…
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
We address whether appellee-husband should have received a credit against child support arrearage for payments made by him to his son and daughter. According to State of Illinois records, the husband owed appellant-wife $4,260 for past due child support. After the son turned eighteen, the husband moved to have the previously ordered $240 monthly support for both children allocated to reflect only support for the daughter. By the time the motion was heard, the daughter had also turned eighteen. At the hearing, the judge granted the husband a credit of $1,225 for payments made directly to the adult son. A review of the record shows $350 of the payments were actually given directly to the daughter before she turned eighteen.
We 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 record does not reveal why the $350 payment was made to the daughter. Accordingly, there was no evidentiary basis for the trial judge to conclude such payment was given in substantial compliance with the support order. The balance of the payments was given to the son for college expenses. The 1975 Illinois Judgment for Divorce also ordered the husband to defray expenses of a college education for both children. The husband cannot satisfy his support obligation with a credit for paying his college education obligation. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…odification is filed and favorably ruled upon. Ragan v. Thomas, 515 So. 2d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Thornton v. Byrnes, 537 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Friend v. Friend, 543 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Thus, one required by court order to make child support payments may not take matters into his own hands, and unilaterally determine that there is a legal reason to depart from the terms of the order. Adams, 423 So. 2d at 598. I…
-
State v. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…parent. Tash v. Oesterle, 380 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In some equitable situations, payments made directly to or on behalf of the child in substantial compliance with the support order can be used to set off the arrearage. Friend v. Friend, 543 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The case of Goldman v. Goldman, 529 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), is most instructive. In Goldman, the parties entered into an agreement wherein the husband would pay the wife child support until the child completed college.…
-
State v. Marcelo Cherta, 711 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(“In some equitable situations, payments made directly to or on behalf of the child in substantial compliance with the support order can be used to set off the arrearage.”) (citation omitted). But see Friend v. Friend, 543 So. 2d 408, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(where record did not reveal the reason for cash payment made directly to minor child, there was no eviden-tiary basis for the court’s conclusion that such payment was given in substantial compliance with support order). This…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goldman v. Goldman, 529 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Thornton v. Byrnes, 537 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ethlyn J. Friedman v. Meyer Friedman, 508 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)