TIMOTHY LEE HORMUTH, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY DENISE HORMUTH, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a dissolution judgment but clarified that child support cannot extend beyond age eighteen without express findings supporting continuation.
Child support cannot be awarded beyond age eighteen absent appropriate findings by the trial court.
[1] Child support obligations terminate at age eighteen unless the trial court makes express findings supporting continuation beyond that age.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy and Mary Hormuth were married in 1979 and had two children; the youngest was born in 1982. The husband appealed the final dissolution judgment…
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 Duration cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, J.
Timothy - Lee Hormuth (husband) and Mary Denise Hormuth (wife) were married on-May 26, 1979, in Leon County. Two children were born of the marriage; one reached majority before the parties’ dissolution hearing; the youngest child was born on June 29, 1982. The husband appeals three orders below, including the final judgment of dissolution entered on August 20,1999, raising five issues.
We affirm without discussion all issues except the award of child support. The husband argues that the final judgment is in error insofar as it can be construed to order child* support for the parties’ youngest. child beyond his eighteenth year. Our court holds that, absent appropriate findings, it is error to award' child support beyond the agé of eighteen. Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (affirming in part, reversing in part, and holding same). The final judgment did not expressly order child support beyond the age of eighteen years; neither did. it make findings which would support continuation of the support obligation beyond the age of eighteen. Therefore, we construe the final judgment as not requiring the husband to pay child support beyond the age of eighteen years. This opinion shall govern the parties accordingly and no further action is required of the trial court. The trial court’s judgment and orders are affirmed in all other respects.
ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcox v. State, 783 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…opf v. Singletary, 686 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), attempted sexual battery is “a crime under section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes, as modified [*1151] by the ‘attempt’ statute, section 777.04, Florida Statutes.” To the extent Lee v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), holds otherwise, we recede from Lee. We find no merit to the remaining constitutional challenges raised by Wilcox. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, BOOTH, MINER, ALLEN, WOLF, KAHN, WEBSTER, DAVIS, BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, BROWNING…
-
Donovan v. State, 821 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…orated what K.B. had told her. As such, it was properly admitted. Donovan also appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing sex offender conditions on his probation. To support this claim the defendant cites to Lee v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) where the First District held that it was impermissible to impose conditions of probation authorized for persons convicted of sexual battery on persons convicted of “attempted” sexual battery. We reject this argument because, in…
-
State v. Thurman, 791 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…fender conditions specified in section 948.03(5)1, Florida Statutes (1999), apply only to defendants convicted of sex offenses, and he was convicted only of attempt. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, basing its decision on Lee v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The State appeals and we reverse. The State urges that Thurman cannot complain that the terms of probation were improper because he did not appeal them, and purports to complain only after violating the probation. Also, Thurman…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gelman v. Roslyn Uditsy Gelman, 512 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)