IN THE INTEREST OF P.A.R., DEPENDENT CHILD
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.
In this second appeal of a child support case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile court order modifying support payments and rejecting the mother's request that the father continue paying half the mortgage on the home. The court found that once title was transferred to the mother following her remarriage, the prior condition requiring mortgage contributions was no longer applicable.
The court held that the father's obligation to pay one-half mortgage payments terminated upon the mother's remarriage and receipt of title to the residence, as this circumstance fell outside the specific conditions established in the prior court opinion. The modification of support terms was not erroneous.
“The amended decree shall provide that the husband pay all mortgage payments from the date of the amended decree, together with interest, taxes and insurance. One-half of each of such payments shall be considered as child support, and the remaining one-half shall be considered as the husband's payment upon his own interest in the property.”
Establishes the prior court's conditional requirement that mortgage payments continue only so long as the mother and child reside in the home
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother of a dependent child remarried and, by agreement, received title to the home where she and the child resided. The father had previously bee…
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
This is an appeal from the juvenile court, and it is the second appearance of *711this case in this court. See: Rudolph v. Rudolph, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 397. Following the rendition of said opinion, subsequent proceedings were had in the trial court in light of the following:
1. The mother of the minor child, had remarried.
2. Title to the home • premises wherein the mother and minor child were residing was, by agreement, conveyed from the former husband to the former wife.
3. The mother of the minor child and her new husband were occupying the premises from the time of her remarriage through the time of the transfer of title.
4. The cause was transferred to the juvenile court by the circuit court, for the purpose of considering matters relating to the welfare of the minor child. The juvenile judge entered an order on May 11, 1964-, raising the support payments to $20.00 a week, requiring the father to pay one-half of the outstanding medical bills, and to pay all subsequent medical bills provided he is consulted prior to their being incurred.
The mother has now brought this appeal, contending error in the entry of this order and, in particular, the failure to require the father to continue to pay one-half of the mortgage payments on the home.
As noted from our previous opinion, the father was required to contribute $15.00 a week for the support of the minor child and to pay one-half of the mortgage payments upon the residence while the mother and the minor child lived therein. The opinion read, in part, as follows:
“ * * * The amended decree shall provide that the husband pay all mortgage payments from the date of the amended decree, together with interest, taxes and insurance. One-half of each of such payments shall be considered as child support, and the remaining one-half shall be considered as the husband’s payment upon his own interest in the property. The amended decree shall provide for the right of the mother and the son to live in the former residence of the parties so long as the wife shall maintain it as a home for herself and the child. * * * ”
The appellant contends that the juvenile judge erred in refusing to require the father to continue to pay one-half of the mortgage payments on the home. This contention is found to be without merit because of the mother’s remarriage, the transfer of the title of the residence to her, and the specific wording of this court’s prior opinion [quoted above]. No error has been demonstrated in the ruling relative to medical expenses, particularly in view of the fact that no transcript of the proceedings [which resulted in the rendition of the order of May 11, 1964] was brought to this court. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App. 1959, 106 So.2d 599; Moyer v. Moyer, Fla. App.1959, 114 So.2d 638; Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 559.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the order here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. Davis, 106 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Moyer v. Moyer, 114 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Robinson v. Mayme E. Monahan and Paul Hamersmid, 146 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hanna Iris Rudolph v. Rudolph, 146 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Lottie Sykes Downing v. Bird, 145 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)