PHYLLIS BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
RICKY L. BELL, 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 parent cannot be required to contribute to private schooling expenses without specific factual findings by the trial court regarding ability to pay, standard of living, and child's best interest.
The parties divorced, and the trial court ordered them to share private school expenses for their two minor children. At the time of dissolution, both…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Phyllis Bell appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Ricky L. Bell and raises numerous issues. Except for the requirement to pay the private school expenses of the minor children, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment.
The parties had been previously married to one other. They remarried in 1993 and separated and filed for dissolution in 1997. The final judgment of dissolution was entered in 1999. The parties have two minor children. Following a nonjury trial, the court ordered, inter alia, that the parties share in the cost of a private education for both children. At the time the petition for dissolution was filed, only the eldest child was enrolled in a private school. By the time of the final judgment, the younger child was also enrolled there.
A parent cannot be required to contribute to a child’s private schooling expenses unless the trial court makes three factual findings: “(1) the parties have the ability to pay such expenses, (2) the expenses are in accordance with the customary standard of living of the parties, and (3) attendance at private school is in the child’s best interest.” Musser v. Watkins, 752 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). There was no evidence adduced to support all three requirements for either child.1 Because the required evidence and findings were lacking, we strike the provision requiring the parties to pay for private school expenses for the children.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . Both parties had been involved in bankruptcy proceedings before the second dissolution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleary v. Maria Tereza De Castelo Branco Ferreira Cleary, 872 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…schools, the trial court’s final judgment ordered the Husband to pay all of the private school tuition for each child until that child reaches the age of majority.5 Arguing that he should not have to bear these costs, the Husband cites Bell v. Bell, 811 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in support. In that case, this court said: A parent cannot be required to contribute to a child’s private schooling expenses unless the trial court makes three factual findings: “(1) the parties have the ability to pay such expe…
-
Caryn Heidi Forrest v. Ami RON, 821 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…lity to pay, and such attendance is in the child’s best interest, if they agree that the child should attend private school, Levi v. Levi, 780 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), such attendance is in their customary standard of living, see Bell v. Bell, 811 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Thomas v. Thomas, 776 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Luskin v. Luskin, 492 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 491 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), or if the…
-
Cartwright v. Cartwright, 902 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…factual findings: “(1) the parties have the ability to pay such expenses, (2) the expenses are in accordance with the customary standard of living of the parties, and (3) attendance at private school is in the child’s best interest.” Bell v. Bell, 811 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quoting Musser v. Watkins, 752 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)). We presume for the sake of argument that the trial court’s consideration of the parties’ finances and the children’s history of private school enrollment is…
Authorities Cited
- Musser v. Lorrie Nell Watkins, 752 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)