ZONA W. REGISTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CLIFTON A. REGISTER, 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.
In this modification appeal, the trial court terminated the father's child support obligation on fixed dates before the children reached majority, predetermining that no further support would be owed. The appellate court affirmed the amount of support ordered but reversed the terminal date provision, holding that the father could be required to provide further support if circumstances changed warranting it before the children reached majority.
The trial court exceeded its authority in fixing absolute terminal dates for support that precluded further modification before the children reached majority. While the amount of support ordered was affirmed as proper under the facts shown, the provision terminating support on specified dates was reversed, and the mother may initiate new proceedings for additional support if changed circumstances arise that warrant continued support before the children reach majority.
[1] A trial court abuses its authority by predetermining future child support obligations beyond the point at which a child reaches majority.
[2] A trial court's discretion regarding college expense allowances for a child involves numerous factors, including the child's aptitude and the parent's financial ability.
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“we believe the trial court abused or exceeded his authority in predetermining what circumstances might exist after said terminal dates and before said boys reach their majority”
Establishes that the court found the trial court lacked authority to fix absolute terminal dates for support before minority was reached.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a modification petition for child custody and support of two minor boys in an ongoing divorce matter that had been litigated multip…
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 Divorce Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before this court on appeal from an order modifying a final decree of divorce as to custody and support, only, of the two minor children.
It appears from the record on appeal' that this matter of modification as to custody and support was before the lower court on several occasions. The trial court plainly stated that the case had been before him so many times he felt that he was more familiar with the parties’ financial affairs than they were. In the latest petition for modification, after taking testimony, the trial court found that there had been no substantial changes in circumstances since the previous adjudications on former petitions for modification, and that the defendant-father was paying about all he could afford. A time limit was also fixed, setting the terminal point for support of the older boy at June 30, 1969 and for the other boy at June 29, 1970. These two dates occur before the minor boys reach their majority. It is possible that circumstances may not warrant a continuation of support after the specified dates, but we believe the trial court abused or exceeded his authority in predetermining what circumstances might exist after said terminal dates and before said boys reach their majority.
It is discretionary with the trial court as to whether any allowance should be made to defray college expense, with many factors entering into the question, one being whether the child is college material or not. These factors as well as others will continue to exist until a dependent child reaches his or her majority and must be determined by the court periodically when and if the needs arise and shall be dependent also upon the father’s financial ability to supply such needs.
For these reasons, that portion of the decree appealed from fixing the amount of support money to be paid by the father *685is affirmed but to the extent that said decree precludes further support after the specified times therein fixed, the same is reversed, and the appellant may be permitted to initiate proceedings for further support if changes in circumstances arise warranting the same.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Petition for attorney’s fees is denied.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houston R. White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…whose disabilities of non-age had been removed, a sophomore in college with approximately $3,000 in savings was “not entitled to parental support as a matter of law.” In a per curiam opinion this Court, in Register v. Register, Fla.App. (1st) 1970, 230 So. 2d 684, said: “It is discretionary with the trial court as to whether any allowance should be made to defray college expense, with many factors entering into the question, one being whether the child is college material or not. These factors as well as ot…
-
Aumaitre v. Troyanos, 344 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Drotos v. Drotos, 311 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Dalton v. Dalton, 304 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Register v. Register, 230 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). Affirmed.…
-
Jones v. Zama North Blanchard Jones, 405 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ight to expect his parents to meet that need to the reasonable extent of their ability to do so... . Id. at 731. Accord, Aumaitre v. Troyanos, 344 So. 2d 910 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Bosem v. Bosem, 269 So. 2d 758 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Register v. Register, 230 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1st DCA 1970). I am also influenced by appellant’s obvious financial ability to assume responsibility for his child’s college expenses and by the child’s demonstrated aptitude and desire to pursue a college education. Moreover, since the paren…