GRANT C. HOLT, APPELLANT,
v.
SHEILA C. HOLT, 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 family law appeal, a father challenges a modification order increasing his child support obligation and requiring reimbursement for special schooling expenses. The court affirmed the increased child support for his son but reversed the special schooling reimbursement requirement, finding it was based on a voluntary oral agreement rather than a court-ordered obligation.
The court affirmed the increase in child support for Lance from $110 to $200 per month but reversed the portion requiring reimbursement for special schooling expenses and arrearage. The father is entitled to a $600 credit for overpayment made on Michelle's support after her emancipation.
[1] A parent is entitled to credit for child support paid for an emancipated child.
[2] Oral agreements regarding child support are not enforceable when they contradict written rules of civil procedure.
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“In regard to the schooling, the appellant agreed orally to pay a part of the special schooling for his son. This was not by court order, but was voluntary participation on the part of the father, and never agreed to in writing.”
Establishes that the oral agreement for special schooling costs was voluntary and not enforceable as a court-ordered obligation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved in 1972, and the father was ordered to pay $110 per month for each of two minor children. One child, Michelle, bec…
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 Emancipation Of Child cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHULZ, GEORGE E., Associate Judge.
This case comes to the court subsequent to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage of the parties, which was followed by an order of modification relative to child support. It is from the modification order of the court below the appellant/father brings this appeal.
At the time the parties’ marriage was dissolved (1972), the appellant was ordered to pay $110 per month for each child, there being two minor children of the marriage and custody of them was granted to the appellee/mother. It appears from the record that one of the children, namely, Michelle, became married after the marriage of her parents was dissolved and lived separate and apart from her mother. The father did not have knowledge of these events and continued to pay $110 per month to the appellee toward Michelle’s support even though she was emancipated. The appellant seeks credit for an overpayment of child support. This is not in dispute except as to when Michelle became emancipated. It appears the parties agreed that the amount of $600 was overpaid. We concur the appellant is entitled to this credit, and so order. Now with respect to the other child, Lance, who was thirteen years old in 1972, the appellant seeks relief from the modification order which provides for additional support monies for the boy from $110 to $200 per month, and a reimbursement to appellee for special schooling provided by her for Lance. In regard to the schooling, the appellant agreed orally to pay a part of the special schooling for his son. This was not by court order, but was voluntary participation on the part of the father, and never agreed to in writing. See, Rule 1.030(d) RCP. Further, the evidence fails to show an increased ability to pay on the part of the appellant. Therefore it was error to assess special schooling costs against the father, and we vacate that part of the modification order which provides for arrearage and the $100 a month for the 1974-75 school year. We find no quarrel with the increased child support for Lance who is now older with greater needs, and considering the appellant has been relieved of supporting his daughter Michelle.
We further agree appellee is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs ordered by the trial court, but deny attorney fees and costs to appellee in this court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mandy v. Williams, 492 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…child support). We also note that in Bess, 471 So. 2d at 1342, the court found it significant that the husband had been relieved of support obligations for the parties’ two older children who had reached the age of majority. See also Holt v. Holt, 330 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (where father had been relieved of support obligation of $110 per month for older child because of emancipation, proper to increase support payments for remaining minor child to $200 per month where his needs had increased as he…
-
Bess v. Bess, 471 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…his other two children, who have reached majority. These facts demonstrate that the child support payments agreed to are not commensurate with either the father’s ability to pay or the needs of his daughter. Lee; Brooks; Schottenstein; Holt v. Holt, 330 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for determination of an appropriate increase in the amount of child support. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. HUBBART, J., concurs. . There was expert testimony to the effec…