PAUL D. FRENCH, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY L. FRENCH, 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 Florida appellate court addresses whether a husband can be required to pay child support for adult children attending college as full-time undergraduates. The court holds that attendance at college alone does not create legal dependency, and absent other evidence of dependency, parents have no legal obligation to support adult children beyond age 18, though they may have moral obligations.
A parent cannot be required to pay child support for adult children merely because they attend college full-time; attendance at college does not create legal dependency. The children, now over 18 and of majority age, are entitled to receive trust funds directly rather than through the ex-spouse.
[1] A court may require child support beyond the age of 18 years if a dependent person is in college.
[2] Attendance at college does not, in itself, establish legal dependency for child support purposes.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“They do not become dependent in the eyes of the law because they are in college.”
Establishes that college attendance alone does not create legal dependency for child support purposes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of dissolution of marriage required the husband to pay $500 per child per month for the two children so long as they remained depende…
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
KIRKLAND, THOMAS E., Associate Judge:
The Husband appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, and the Wife cross-appeals.
Appellant’s first ground is that the Court erred in ordering the Husband to pay to Wife support for the children of $500.00 per child per month after the children are over 18 years old. The Court Order states:
“The aforesaid payments for the parties’ children shall continue so long as either or both remain dependent by reason of attendance as a full time college student at an undergraduate school working towards a Bachelor’s Degree.”
The parties have two children, and at the time of entry of the Final Judgment, the children were 17 and 18 years old. Now both are over 18 years old. Appellant contends that Section 1.01(14), Florida Statutes, lowers the age of majority to 18 years and that he cannot be required to support children over 18 years old.
Appellee points out that while Section 1.-01(14), F.S., does lower the disability of non-age from 21 years to 18 years, the second sentence of Section 21 allows the Court to require support beyond 18 years. This portion of the Statute is as follows:
“Provided, however, this act shall not prohibit any court of competent jurisdiction from requiring support for a dependent person beyond the age of 18 years; . . . .”
Appellant, on the other hand, says that attendance at college does not make the children dependent and that there is no evidence to show dependency other than their attendance at college.
We agree with Appellant. Both children are able-bodied, have savings, have worked, and are employable. In addition, the children receive $350.00 a month social security payments until they reach the age of 22 or cease being full time students. They do not become dependent in the eyes of the law because they are in college. See, Carmody v. Carmody, Fla.App. 1970, 230 So. 2d 40; Perla v. Perla, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 689; and Section 39.01(10), F.S.
There are many moral obligations both parents have to their children after they become of age, and providing college education when possible may be one of them. However, it is not a legal obligation.
The Appellant’s second ground is that the Court erred in directing him to transfer to the Wife those trust funds which he is holding as Trustee for the son and daughter for their education and which they earned while working for him.
Since the children are now over 18 years and are of age of majority, the Appellant should pay the trust monies directly to the children, and we reverse the trial court on this point.
We have reviewed the remaining point of the Appellant in this appeal, and the Appellee’s cross-appeal, and find they are without merit.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part and remanded to allow the Circuit Court to determine if alimony payments to Appellee should be revised in view of Appellant’s increased ability to pay because of elimination of child support.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part; and remanded.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur. . See Chapter 73-21, Laws of Florida (1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…therwise competent, we hold that support ceases upon reaching the age of majority. Perla v. Perla, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 689; Fincham v. Levin, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 883; White v. White, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 619; French v. French, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 668; Warren v. Warren, Fla.App.1974, 306 So. 2d 197; Robertson v. Robertson, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 246; Kowalski v. Kowalski, Fla.App.1975, 315 So. 2d 497. We are particularly impressed by the language used by Judge Boyer in White v. White, supra, wh…
-
French v. French, 452 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…provision ordering the husband to pay one-half the cost of room and board for the children during college years because a husband has no legal obligation to pay child support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday. See Klein, supra; French v. French, 303 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Next, we turn to the post-judgment order directing the husband to pay the first installment of the daughter’s $4,200 annual tuition bill. We view this order as nothing more than an interpretation of the final judgment which req…
-
Genoe v. Violetta Genoe, 373 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…if it finds a need therefor. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. . Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976). . § 743.07, Fla.Stat. (1977); Perla v. Perla, 58 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1952); French v. French, 303 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . French v. French, 303 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). . Kowalski…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1952)
- Carmody v. Carmody, 230 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)