C. DANA ROLLINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
JUNE KIRN ROLLINGS, 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 a trial court erred in ordering child support for an eighteen-year-old daughter absent an agreement by the father to continue support past majority.
The husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, specifically challenging the award of child support for three children, one of whom …
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.
RYDER, Judge.
The appellant/husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and raises only one meritorious point on appeal, that relating to an award of child support to his three children in the sum of $200.00 per month per child. Two of the children at the time of the final judgment were sixteen and thirteen. The third, Ann, was eighteen years of age.
There is authority in this state to require continuance of support of dependent progeny past the age of majority, and, in certain instances, when they attend college.1 However, under the facts of this case, and in the absence of an agreement by the appellant to continue support for his eighteen year old daughter, we find the trial court erred in ordering such support for her. Kowalski v. Kowalski, 315 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Perla v. Perla, 58 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1952).
Therefore, to the extent the final judgment orders payment of child support to appellant’s daughter Ann after her eighteenth birthday the same should be and is hereby reversed. However, this judgment of dissolution in all other aspects should be and is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1975); Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In all fairness to the trial judge herein, the Kern case was decided July 12, 1978, some months after the entry of the trial judge’s order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicolay v. Jacquelyn Ann Nicolay, 387 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…s eligible for further support. In other words, contrary to the holding of Kern v. Kern, a dissolution proceeding would be a proper forum in which to determine dependency.4 The most recent case in which we faced this issue was Rollings v. Rollings, 362 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). There the court dealt with an award of $200 a month support to an eighteen year old child. Although it reversed this award the court did say, “There is authority in this state to require continuance of support of dependent progen…
-
Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…fers to the societal ideal of continued parental support for the education and training of these children. These statements of concern neither created a legal duty nor provided a new cause of action. Grapin at 854-55. See also Rollings v. Rollings, 362 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The order requiring appellant to pay child support through his child’s graduation date is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions that the trial court enter an order consistent with this opinion. Appel-lee’s motion for…
Authorities Cited
- Finn v. Finn, 312 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1975)
- Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1952)
- Houston R. White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Haddox v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. & Renette Rousseau, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Kowalski v. Kowalski, 315 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)