RICHARD DAVID FIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNETTE FEATHERSTONE FIELD, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in sua sponte changing the child support termination date from age 21 to 18, as this modification was not justified and misapplied the law regarding the age of majority.
Following a divorce, alimony and child support were established. The husband petitioned for modification, and the trial court entered an order setting…
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 Age Of Majority cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
The marriage of the parties to this action was terminated in 1967 by a final judgment of divorce. At that time alimony was set at $750.50 per month and child support at $500.50. On May 23, 1968, alimony payments were reduced to $500 per month by an order of the trial court. Subsequently the wife moved for an order of contempt and the husband moved to reduce alimony payments. The trial court issued an order denying the husband’s petition and stayed contempt proceedings conditioned upon the husband paying $201 per week in alimony and child support.
In November, 1972, the husband petitioned for a modification of alimony and child support setting forth certain changes in circumstances as grounds. The trial judge entered an order establishing the temporary amount of $201 per week as the amount of the husband’s obligation. The husband filed timely appeal from this order. We have carefully considered the points raised by the appellant, husband, and find them to be without merit.
The appellee, wife, filed cross-assignments of error. Her attack on the reduction of alimony and child support is without merit. The trial court’s order of reduction of alimony appears to be consistent with the discretion allowed a trial judge in the premises.
We do, however, find merit in her attack on that part of the order appealed from which changed the termination date of child support payments from age 21, as provided in the final judgment of divorce, to age 18. This modification, apparently made by the trial court sua sponte, is a misinterpretation of the applicable law. Chapter 73-21, Laws of Florida, provides that the change in the minimum age of majority is to operate prospectively and not retrospectively and is not to affect The change in the in-pre-existing rights, stant case is not justified by the record and must be reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
HOBSON, A. C. J. and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1975)…of VanLoon v. VanLoon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 2d 205, cited by petitioner in oral argument is not inconsistent with the conclusions reached here. A similar conclusion to that of the case sub judice was reached in Field v. Field, Fla.App., DCA (2nd), 291 So. 2d 654 which held the trial court in error for modifying, sua sponte, a support order in a judgment by changing the termination date of payments from age 21, as provided in the judgment of divorce, to age 18. The court observed the prospective operation of…
-
Houston R. White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…758 the court, in considering an “open ended” support order, said: “* * * Of course, the provisions must be limited to the period of time before the children become twenty-one years old. * * * ” (at page 763) In Field v. Field, Fla.App. (2d) 1974, 291 So. 2d 654, opinion filed March 22, 1974, our sister court of the Second District held that the trial court erred in modifying a final judgment by changing the termination date of child support payments from age 21, as provided in the final judgment of divorce…
-
Manganiello v. Manganiello, 359 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…child support awards made prior to July 1, 1973, the effective date of the statute. Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Adams v. Adams, 340 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA [*28] 1977); Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). To the extent that Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), reaches a different result, we decline to follow it as being contrary to the established law of this state. Measured by these standards, it is clear that the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence