ELIZABETH MARIE HEATH RINEHART, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD EARL HEATH, SR., 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.
Elizabeth Marie Heath Rinehart appealed a trial court order terminating child support when her adult son failed to file an affidavit proving college enrollment. The appeals court reversed, holding that child support obligated until age 21 under the original 1972 divorce judgment could only be terminated if the child married, died, became self-supporting, or reached 21, not based on failure to document college status.
The court reversed the termination order, holding that child support established in a final judgment until age 21 cannot be terminated earlier absent a finding that the child was self-supporting or married. College enrollment status is irrelevant to the original termination conditions, and the child's failure to document enrollment cannot be grounds for early termination.
[1] Child support obligations established in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage continue until the child reaches the age specified in the judgment, dies, marries, or…
[2] A party seeking modification of a child support order bears the burden of presenting evidence to support the modification.
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“Absent a finding by the trial judge that the child was self-supporting or married, the child support should not have been terminated earlier than the child's twenty-first birthday.”
Establishes the core holding that termination can only occur upon one of the original conditions specified in the 1972 judgment.
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' 1972 final divorce judgment required the father to pay child support until the child reached age 21, died, married, or became self-suppor…
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 Modification Of Support Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Elizabeth Marie Heath Rine-hart, appeals an order of termination of child support. We reverse.
In the July 19, 1972, final judgment which dissolved the marriage of appellant and her then husband, appellee, Ronald Earl Heath, Sr., the following provision was made in regard to support for the child of the parties and the conditions upon which that support would terminate: “[T]he first payment to be made on July 28, 1972, and each Friday thereafter until the said minor reaches the age of 21 years, dies, marries or becomes self-supporting, subject to modification by further order of the court.”
The order of August 16, 1990, which appellant has brought to us for review in this appeal, provides as follows:
The former Husband, RONALD EARL HEATH, SR., shall continue to provide court ordered child support for a period of six (6) months from the entry of this Order, unless the parties [sic] son, RONALD EARL HEATH, JR., files an Affidavit with the court that he is enrolled in college or a professional training program.
In the event the parties [sic] son, RONALD EARL HEATH, JR., fails to furnish the necessary information/documentation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, then the former Husband’s child support obligation shall automatically terminate at the expiration of the six (6) month period.
The child of the parties for whom the child support was provided will not reach the age of twenty-one until February 9, 1992. It is the burden of one seeking modification of an order to present evidence to carry that burden. Absent a finding by the trial judge that the child was self-supporting or married, the child support should not have been terminated earlier than the child’s twenty-first birthday. The intervening legislative change of the age of majority from twenty-one years to eighteen years has no effect on preexisting orders of child support establishing support until age twenty-one. Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975). The child’s enrollment in college or a professional training program should have no bearing on appellant’s continued duty to pay the support for the child absent the occurrence of any of the alternatives contained in the final judgment of dissolution.
Reversed and remanded for treatment consistent herewith.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.