GEORGE AUMAITRE, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA TROYANOS, 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.
The court held that the reduction in the age of majority did not relieve the appellant of his contractual obligations for child support as established in the original decree.
Appellant was ordered to pay child support based on a stipulation in a paternity action. Later, the court ordered additional payments for college and …
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
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
The appellant was sued by appellee in a paternity and support action in the Circuit Court of Dade County in 1966, wherein appellant was found to be the father of two girls borne by appellee out of wedlock. The final decree dated May 31, 1967, ratified and incorporated by reference a stipulation entered into by the parties in open court that settled all issues between the parties and obligated the appellant to pay, inter alia, the appellee as and for support, $35.00 per week for each child, until the child reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years.
On October 30, 1973, appellee applied to the court for an increased allowance for the children and was granted same on May 2, 1974.
By this appeal the appellant questions the correctness of the court’s orders requiring him to pay for the children’s college and summer camp expenses in addition to $65.00 per week, instead of $35.00 per week for each child as provided for in the original decree of May 31, 1967.
It is appellant’s contention that he is entitled to be relieved of such obligation by reason of the provisions of Chapter 73-21, Laws of Florida, which reduced the age of majority to eighteen (18) years of age, effective July 1, 1973. We cannot agree.
We have carefully considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1975); Drotos v. Drotos, 311 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Dalton v. Dalton, 304 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Register v. Register, 230 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Zama North Blanchard Jones, 405 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…is needed to be competitive in the economic system in which he must make his way. He and society have a right to expect his parents to meet that need to the reasonable extent of their ability to do so... . Id. at 731. Accord, Aumaitre v. Troyanos, 344 So. 2d 910 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Bosem v. Bosem, 269 So. 2d 758 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Register v. Register, 230 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1st DCA 1970). I am also influenced by appellant’s obvious financial ability to assume responsibility for his child’s college expenses an…
-
Bocchino v. Braner, 546 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…erminates at the child’s eighteenth birthday. Aeree v. Aeree, 508 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Broche v. Broche, 489 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); accord, Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 487 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); but see, Aumaitre v. Troyanos, 344 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Consequently, the trial court could not order the increased child support for the eighteen year old and the increase for the sixteen year old must cease when she reaches eighteen. Any additional support ordered beyond a child’s e…
Authorities Cited
- Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1975)
- Daugherty v. Georgette Daugherty, 308 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1975)
- Field v. Field, 291 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Dalton v. Dalton, 304 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Zona W. Register v. Register, 230 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Drotos v. Wahneeda W. Drotos, 311 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)