JOHN ALDEN BRIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANN KING BRIGGS, 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 trial court cannot order a parent to support a child over 21 years of age, even for educational purposes, unless the child is dependent due to physical or mental deficiencies.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the husband appealed monetary awards in the final judgment. Specifically, he challenged the order requiring him t…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
Being aggrieved by certain monetary awards contained in the final judgment of dissolution, the husband has appealed.
Our reading of the briefs and study of the record reveals adequate support for the final judgment, with the exception of the provision contained therein requiring the appellant husband to pay the college tuition and allowance of $25.00 per week for the parties’ 23 year old son.
Generally, the obligation of a parent to support a child ceases when the child reaches majority, except when the child is unable to support himself because of physical or mental deficiencies. Perla v. Perla, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 689. Thus, prior to July 1, 1973, the effective date of § 743.07, F.S.1973, after a child reached 21 years of age, absent physical or mental disability, a parent would not be obligated to render support. With the passage of § 743.07, F.S., the age of majority was reduced to 18, but courts of competent jurisdiction were expressly authorized to require support for a dependent person beyond the age of 18 years.
The recent case of Finn v. Finn, Fla.1975, 312 So. 2d 726, opinion filed March 26, 1975, seems to hold that dependency as a result of the bona fide pursuit of education may exist as to one between 18 and 21 years of age. However, we do not interpret either § 743.07, F.S., or the Finn case as authorizing a court to require a parent to support a child over 21 years of age, whether for educational purposes or otherwise, unless the child is dependent as a result of physical or mental deficiencies.
Accordingly, it is our view that the trial court had no authority to require ap pellant to pay for the tuition and allowance of the 23 year old son of the parties. We therefore remand this cause with directions that the trial court delete paragraph four from the final judgment, which we affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
OWEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…CA 1977); Coalla v. Coalla, 330 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Kro [*485] gen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Kowalski v. Kowalski, 315 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Briggs v. Briggs, 312 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). . Example given, Golden v. Golden, 230 Ga. 867, 199 S.E. 2d 796 (1973); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 233 Ga. 902, 214 S.E. 2d 368 (1975); Krone v. Krone, 503 P. 2d 359 (Colo.Ct.App. II…
-
Nicolay v. Jacquelyn Ann Nicolay, 387 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…roposition that the statutes changing the age of majority were not to be applied retroactively.3 Decisions from the Fourth District Court of Appeal on this subject have been mixed. Shortly after the Finn decision, the court issued Briggs v. Briggs, 312 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). There, in holding that a parent could not be obliged to support a twenty-three year old son in college, the court said, “The recent case of Finn v. Finn . seems to hold that dependency as a result of the bona fide pursuit of edu…
-
Watterson v. Earline O. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…st disagree with the manner in which the law was applied to the facts of the case. There is nothing in the law which requires a parent to support a child who is not disabled by physical or mental incompetency beyond the age of 21. Briggs v. Briggs, 312 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The decision of Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975) which adopted the dissenting opinion in White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) simply holds that the law which changed the age of majority from 21 to 18 did not…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1975)
- Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1952)