Andrews v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 31 August 1983
• Citation: 437 So.2d 1306
• Parties: Buddy Deering ANDREWS v. Eva W. ANDREWS. Civ. 3812.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 1306

437 So.2d 1306

Buddy Deering ANDREWS v. Eva W. ANDREWS.

Civ. 3812.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 31, 1983.

Neil L. Hanley, Mobile, for appellant.

W. Stanley Garner, Ozark, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is a case of interpretation of a divorce decree.

The parties herein were divorced in March 1978 and the plaintiff (the mother herein) was awarded custody of the two minor children, Candice (18) and Paul (14). Child support was set at $300 per month until June 1, 1982, at which time the amount would be reduced to $150 per month until June 1, 1986. Payment of child support from June 1982 to June 1986 would continue unless Paul "shall have quit school or taken full-time employment." The final divorce decree did not provide for a reduction upon one of the children attaining majority or marrying.

Full payment of child support continued through December 1, 1979, after which time the father unilaterally reduced payments to $150 per month. Payment of the $150 per month continued until approximately April 1982, when all payment ceased. The mother petitioned the court for a rule nisi for the father's failure to make proper support payments. The court found the father in arrears in the amount of $6,000 through February 1, 1982. It also held that the father was obligated to continue paying $150 per month for the support of the son until Paul either quit school or assumed full-time employment. The father's motion to amend the judgment was denied. He appealed.

The father raises two issues: (1) that he was authorized to reduce child support payments from $300 to $150 upon the marriage of his daughter, and (2) that he was authorized to terminate child support payments pursuant to the terms of the divorce decree when his son withdrew from school for a quarter and played in a band through the spring and summer.

We find neither of the contentions well taken. The father's agreement to continue support payments after a child has attained majority, when incorporated in a decree, is enforceable and subject to modification. Scott v. Scott, 401 So.2d 92 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). We have stated that the legal duty of a father to support a minor child ends when the child marries and that such marriage provides cause to seek modification. Owens v. Owens, 412 So.2d 820 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). Yet, a father may not unilaterally reduce lump sum child support payments where the decree does not so provide. Id, at 822. See also, Weaver v. Weaver, 401 So.2d 77 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 78 (Ala.1981). The agreement placed in the decree does not provide for automatic reduction upon the marriage of one of the children. The father could have sought judicial modification of the decree. The court correctly held that...