STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND CAROL F. WHALEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HUGHEY FRANCIS WHALEY, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's determination that child support payments in a divorce agreement were allocated between two children. The court held that the plain language of the agreement established unallocated child support, meaning full monthly payments continued until the youngest child reached majority, and remanded for recalculation of arrearages.
The court held that the clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement provided for unallocated child support payments of $1,500 per month, continuing until the youngest child reached age 18, not reduced when the oldest child became an adult.
[1] Child support payments are presumed to be unallocated unless the agreement clearly and unambiguously states otherwise.
[2] A settlement agreement's language must be interpreted to determine whether child support payments are allocated or unallocated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement provided for unallocated child support payments.”
Establishes the court's holding that the agreement's language clearly indicates unallocated support continuing until the youngest child reaches majority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, Hughey Francis Whaley and Carol F. Whaley divorced with children ages 17 and 10. Their settlement agreement required the father to pay $1,500…
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 Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In 1980, the father, Hughey Francis Wha-ley, and the mother, Carol F. Whaley, were divorced. At the time of the divorce, the parties’ children were ages 17 and 10. The parties entered into an agreement which was incorporated into the Amended Final Judgment and Decree. Paragraph 2 of the agreement provided as follows:
Wife shall have and recover of the husband the sum of FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500.00) per month towards the support and maintenance of said children, payable on the 5th day of each month beginning with the month of June, 1980.
Said child support payments shall continue until the youngest child shall have attained the age of 18 years, dies, marries or becomes emancipated.
The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services [HRS], on behalf of the mother, filed a motion alleging arrearages in the payment of child support by the father. At the hearing, the primary issue was the interpretation of the above paragraph. The father took the position that child support payments were allocated; therefore, when the oldest child reached majority, the child support payments were reduced to $750.00 per month. The mother, on the other hand, took the position that the child support payments were unallocated; therefore, the child support payments remained at $1,500.00 per month until the youngest child reached majority. At the hearing, the parties agreed that $50,175.00 had been paid by the father after the entry of the settlement agreement.
The General Master interpreted the agreement as providing for an allocation of $750.00 per month to each child. The General Master’s decision was based solely on the language of the agreement. Based on this interpretation, the General Master calculated the total arrearages at $26,325.00. The trial court approved the General Master’s recommended order. The trial court denied the mother’s and HRS’s motion to vacate. This appeal follows. The mother and HRS contend that the trial court erred in adopting the General Master’s finding that pursuant to the settlement agreement the child support payments were allocated. We agree.
The clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement provided for unallocated child support payments. See State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, we reverse the final order adopting the General Master’s finding that the child support payments were allocated and remand for a recalculation of the arrearages. On remand, however, the father may raise any applicable defenses.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. McCLUNG, 760 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ision, the Department asserts, is virtually identical to language utilized in other cases which have found the awarded child support to be unallocated. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Child Support Enforcement v. Whaley, 624 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State, Dep’t. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Office of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Worthy v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We disagree. Based upon…
-
State v. Leonel Ortega, 948 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ision, the Department asserts, is virtually identical to language utilized in other cases which have found the awarded child support to be unallocated. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Child Support Enforcement v. Whaley, 624 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State, Dep’t. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Office of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Worthy v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We disagree. Based upo…
-
State v. Hughey F. Whaley, 692 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. After our reversal in State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 624 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the trial court, in the order now under review, ap [*1017] proved a hearing officer’s decision fixing a judgment for unpaid child support and setting a monthly amount for its repayment. We agree with both of the appellant’s claim…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 330 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hardy v. State, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- State v. Carwell, 524 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)