S. CHARLES ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANN S. ADAMS, 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.
Charles Adams appeals an order requiring him to pay child support until his children reach age 21, despite a 1973 statutory change that reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18. The court holds that because the child support obligation was established before the statutory change and the new statute applied only prospectively, Adams remains obligated to pay until his children reach 21.
Child support obligations established before the statutory change apply prospectively only, not retrospectively, and therefore do not affect obligations existing prior to July 1, 1973. Charles must pay child support until each child attains age 21.
[1] A statute reducing the age of majority operates prospectively and does not affect child support obligations existing prior to its effective date.
[2] A child support obligation fixed by a court order prior to the statutory reduction of the age of majority remains enforceable until the child reaches the age of 21.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Section 743.07(3), Florida Statutes (1973) clearly provides that it is to operative prospectively, not retrospectively and shall not affect obligations existing prior to July 1, 1973.”
Establishes that the statutory reduction in age of majority did not retroactively affect child support obligations created before the effective date.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles and Ann Adams divorced in February 1973, with the chancellor ordering temporary child support of $75 per week for four minor children. A final…
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
PER CURIAM.
Charles Adams takes this interlocutory appeal to review an order directing him to pay child support until each of his minor children attain the age of 21.
On February 28, 1973 the chancellor entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage between Charles Adams and his wife, Ann, and directing Charles to pay temporary child support of $75 per week for the four minor children until further testimony could be taken. At a subsequent hearing, the chancellor on July 10, 1973 entered another final dissolution of marriage judgment reaffirming and republishing the February 28 judgment, and ordered Charles to pay $40 per week per child until further order of court. Ten days previous to the entry of this judgment, on July 1, 1973, Section 743.07, Florida Statutes became effective and lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18 years. On September 12, 1975 Ann filed a petition asking that the child support be increased and this petition was referred to a general master. Meanwhile, on March 2, 1976 two of the children attained the age of 18 and Charles discontinued the support payments for them. Thereafter, on May 25 the general master submitted his report wherein he found that the July 10, 1973 judgment awarding child support was in effect nunc pro tunc as of February 28, and concluded that Charles was obligated to pay support for each of the children until they reached the age of 21. On June 7, 1976 the chancellor adopted the report and ordered Charles to pay support until each child attains the age of 21 or until further order of court.
On appeal Charles argues that where a temporary award of child support was entered in February 1973, and where the age of majority was reduced by the legislature on July 1, 1973 from 21 to 18 years and a final judgment for child support was entered on July 10, 1973 providing for child support payments until further order of court, the obligation to pay child support extends only to age 18. We disagree.
Section 743.07(3), Florida Statutes (1973) clearly provides that it is to operative prospectively, not retrospectively and shall not affect obligations existing prior to July 1, 1973.
With the entry of the February 28, 1973 judgment Charles’ obligation to pay child support became fixed at that time, and the chancellor was eminently correct in requiring him to pay child support until each child attains the age of 21. See Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…SCHWARTZ, Judge. In Adams v. Adams, 340 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), this court held that Mr. Adams’s obligation to support his four children as imposed by a pre-July 1, 1973 support order continued until they reached twenty-one or “further order of court.”1 The determinative issue on the present…
-
Manganiello v. Manganiello, 359 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ss terms does not operate retroactively to alter or change 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 s…
-
Burgdorf v. Burgdorf, 372 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…fective date of this statute. Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Manganiello v. Manganiello, 359 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Adams v. Adams, 340 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). 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. Consequently, the order denying wife’s motion for co…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Daugherty v. Georgette Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1975)