GEORGETTE DAUGHERTY, APPELLANT,

v.

W. EMORY DAUGHERTY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1974-04-23

No. 74-100

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

293 So. 2d 394 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1974) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a statute defining 'minor' as under 18 did not affect pre-existing child support obligations for children over 18 but under 21.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant wife sought to enforce a child support judgment for a 19-year-old child. The trial court denied enforcement, finding the child had reached m…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Age Of Majority Child Support Obligation Retroactive Application Of Statutes Statutory Construction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Age Of Majority cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The appellant wife appeals an order of the circuit court denying her motion for enforcement of a judgment entered June 13, 1969 providing support for a nineteen year old child. The court held:

* * * * * *

“3. That Florida Statute [ ] § L-01(14) [F.S.A.], which became effective July 1, 1973, defines ‘minor’ as a person who has not attained the age of 18 years.

“4. That the oldest child of the parties was 19 years of age on the date the aforesaid statute became effective.

5. That the oldest child of the parties therefore attained the age of majority on the date Florida Statute 1.01(14) [F.S.A.] became effective, thereby ending the Defendant’s obligation to make support payments for said child.”

The order appealed was entered prior to this court’s interpretation of the statute in Finn v. Finn, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 294 So. 2d 57, wherein this court held:

* * * * *

“Section 3 clearly indicates that the statute was not to have an impact on obligations existing prior to the effective date of the act. Prior to July 1, 1973, the appellant was obligated to support the children of the marriage until they reached the age of 21 years. Under the provisions of the act, these obligations were not to be disturbed. See: Vicino v. Vicino, 30 Conn.Sup. 49, 298 A. 2d 241. Compare Ruhsam v. Ruhsam, 21 Ariz.App. 101, 515 P. 2d 1199.”

i]í % s{i ¿!¡i

See also Field v. Field, Fla.App.2nd 1974, 291 So. 2d 654.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinions cited.

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Dalton v. Dalton, 304 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)

…his order under attack here. Those cases are in the chronological order of their appearances in the advance sheets: White v. White, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So. 2d 619; Ackerly v. Ackerly, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 66; Daugherty v. Daugherty, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 394; Finn v. Finn, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 57; Field v. Field, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 654. In Field, supra, the lower court, while considering a petition of the husband filed in November, 1972, for modification of alimony and child support, sua spon…
Drotos v. Wahneeda W. Drotos, 311 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)

…tively, and “shall not affect the rights and obligations existing prior to the effective date of this act” [July 1, 1973]. See Finn v. Finn, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 57; Finn v. Finn, Fla. 1975, 312 So. 2d 726; Daugherty v. Daugherty, Fla.App. 1974, 293 So. 2d 394; Daugherty v. Daugherty, Fla. 1975, 308 So. 2d 24. The said older child had not married. She was attending college, and, although she had a part-time job, was not shown to be self-supporting. It follows that no excuse in law was shown for the failur…
Hiltz v. Hiltz, 295 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)

…he marital home. Our review of this record convinces us that all of the allowances were within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge as granted him under Chapter 73-21, Laws of Florida, 1973. See Daugherty v. Daugherty, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 293 So. 2d 394; Finn v. Finn, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 294 So. 2d 57. In particular, the award to the wife of the equity in the family home is, we think, justified by the length of the marriage, the age and health of the ap-pellee, and the other circumstances revealed by…

Authorities Cited

Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
Finn v. Finn, 294 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw