KIM ERVIN AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BEN CHASON, 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.
Kim Ervin appeals a trial court order that found Ben Chason was not in arrears on child support and modified his obligation downward based on child-support guidelines. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the mother lacked authority to agree to reduced payments and the father failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances required for modification.
A mother cannot waive or reduce a child's right to support through private agreement with the father, as parents cannot contract away a child's right to support. Additionally, a father seeking downward modification based on guidelines must show a substantial change in circumstances and cannot obtain reduction from a previously agreed amount based on guidelines alone.
[1] Parents cannot contract away a child's right to support, nor can a parent waive the child's right by acquiescing in the other parent's nonpayment.
[2] Parents may modify a court-ordered child support arrangement only if the child continues to receive a roughly equivalent amount and the arrangement serves the child's bes…
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“It is well established that parents cannot contract away their child's right to support, nor can a mother waive the child's right by acquiescing in the father's nonpayment.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that private agreements between parents cannot reduce a child's right to support
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 had a child-support order requiring the father to pay $400 per month. The parties later entered into a written post-judgment agreement red…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kim Ervin, appeals an order of the trial court finding that appel-lee, Ben Chason, was not in arrears in his child-support payments by virtue of a post-judgment agreement between the parties, and modifying his obligation based upon the child-support guidelines. Because the mother did not have the authority to agree to a reduced payment, and because the father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances, we reverse and remand with directions.
It is well established that parents cannot contract away their child’s right to support, nor can a mother waive the child’s right by acquiescing in the father’s nonpayment. Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Green v. Horne, 421 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Parents may modify a court-ordered arrangement only if the child continues to receive a roughly equivalent amount, and such an arrangement serves the best interests of the child. Green, 421 So. 2d at 789; Lester v. Lester, 736 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This was not the situation at bar; hence, the father is liable for the arrears.
The trial court also erred in modifying the father’s child-support obligation downward from the $400 per month he was ordered to pay at dissolution, to $848 per month under the guidelines. The court did not state at the hearing or in the order its rationale for reducing the father’s obligation. The father provided no evidence that there was a substantial change in circumstances. If the court was operating under section 61.30(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1999),1 case law discloses that the statute is inapplicable to a situation, such as that at bar, in which a parent agrees to pay an amount above the guidelines and later files for modification to obtain a reduction, without showing any decrease in income or in the child’s needs. Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Turner v. Turner, 695 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In the case at bar, although the trial court did not incorporate a marital settlement agreement into the final order, the father admitted that the parties had agreed to him paying $100 per week and that the agreement had been reduced to writing. Therefore, under Turner and Knight, the father was not entitled to a downward modification based on the guidelines alone.2
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to reinstate the child-support obligation from the final judgment at dissolution as well as the father’s arrearage.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR. . Section 61.30(l)(b) provides:
The guidelines may provide the basis for proving a substantial change in circumstances upon which a modification of an existing order may be granted. However, the difference between the existing monthly obligation and the amount provided for under the guidelines shall be at least 15 percent or $50, whichever amount is greater, before the court may find that the guidelines provide a substantial change in circumstances.
. We also question whether the reduction from $400 to $348 per month satisfies the requirement in section 61.30(l)(b) that there be a 15 percent or $50 difference. The mother does not challenge the reduction on this basis, but it does appear that the $52 decrease from the original $400 per month ordered in the final judgment to the guidelines amount is only a 13 percent difference, which would also preclude modification under this provision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golson v. Golson, 207 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…s omitted). However, under some circumstances, parents can modify a court-ordered arrangement for child support provided that the child continues to receive a roughly equivalent amount and the best interests of the child are served. Ervin v. Chason, 750 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Green, 421 So. 2d at 789; Lester v. Lester, 736 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). In the present case, both parties preferred that their children remain in private school, the Former Husband paid private school tuiti…
-
Fleischmann v. Fleischmann, 868 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…uld not use the statute as the sole basis for relief from an agreed-to, judicially adopted child support order without a showing of independent changed circumstances. See Turner v. Turner, 695 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Ervin v. Chason, 750 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the 2001 amendments cannot provide the sole basis upon which to seek a modification of child support. However, be…
-
Simmons v. Lowell L. Simmons, II, 922 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…statute [section 61.30] as the sole basis for relief from an agreed-to, judicially adopted child support order without a showing of independent changed circumstances. See Turner v. Turner, 695 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also Ervin v. Chason, 750 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We continue to adhere to this principle. Therefore, the court erred in granting the downward modification of child support. [*375] To the extent that the court’s ruling elim…
Authorities Cited
- Baumann v. Agudelo (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Lester v. Lester, 736 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Turner v. Turner, 695 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Boulware v. Coal. FOR THE Homeless OF Cent. Fla., 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Knight v. Knight, 702 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Pitts v. State, 421 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Annsulette Green v. Horne, 421 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)