Armour v. Allen
Decision Date | 11 December 1979 |
Docket Number | No. NN-41,NN-41 |
Citation | 377 So.2d 798 |
Parties | Mary Jean ARMOUR, formerly Mary Jean Allen, Appellant, v. Robert S. ALLEN, Jr., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald G. Nichols of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
William M. Layton, Lake Worth, for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from the final judgment of the Circuit Court, Duval County, in a suit to increase child support ordered by an earlier decree of divorce; to require payment of arrearages due under the earlier judgment and to find appellee in contempt for failure to pay.
The facts, as determined by the trial court, are that the final decree of divorce dated February 3, 1965, ordered appellee to pay $15 per week child support; that the appellee paid the required payments until 1967 but thereafter made no payments; that in February of 1967 appellant and appellee agreed that the appellee would not be required to pay child support payments if he refrained from contacting the plaintiff and if he refrained from any attempt to visit with the child; that defendant has made no contact with the wife or child since the date of the alleged agreement and that at all times subsequent to the entry of the final decree of divorce has had the ability to pay the amount of child support ordered therein. The court further found that in reliance on the alleged agreement, the appellee has "changed his lifestyle and incurred certain debts based upon his income and known expenses, which did not include child support payments . . . ." Based on these findings, the trial court ruled that appellant's claim for child support payments more than four years old is barred by the statute of limitations and that the remaining claim for arrearages in child support is barred by the doctrine of laches. The court determined that defendant was not in contempt because he had not willfully refused to pay.
We reverse that portion of the trial court's order which finds the claim for child support payments barred by the statute of limitations and laches, but affirm the trial court's refusal to find the husband in contempt.
At the outset, it must be noted that the existence of an agreement such as the trial court found to exist in this cause, purporting to relieve the husband of child support payments, may be a relevant factor going to the willfulness of the husband's failure to pay, but does not affect the obligation of child support as such. The law is clear that the parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support. Neither may the mother waive the child's right to support by acquiescing in the father's non-payment of support. Child support is a right which belongs to the child. It is not a requirement imposed by one parent on the other; rather it is a dual obligation imposed on the parents by the State. The rule is stated by the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Airston v. Bollinger, 88 Fla. 123, 101 So. 282, 283 (1924) and in Ciociola v. Ciociola, 302 So.2d 462, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), as follows:
To like effect is the decision in Lang v. Lang, 252 So.2d 809, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), holding:
"(T)he basic right of the minor child to be supported by its parents is not affected by an agreement between the parties with respect to such obligations; 'children are not chattels whose rights can be bargained away by parents'; such agreements will be evaluated with the best interest of the child as its criteria."
A number of cases recognize that claims for child support arrearages may be defeated by laches, 1 but rarely have the courts found the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the application of that doctrine. 2 In all events the welfare of the child is paramount and in the absence of extraordinary facts or strongly compelling circumstances, the action or inaction of a parent will not give rise to a defense of laches barring enforcement of child support arrearages. A different rule applies as to alimony arrearages.
In Lee v. Lee, 157 Fla. 439, 26 So.2d 177 (1946), a pre-divorce agreement set the amount of support for the wife and two minor children and was incorporated into the final judgment of divorce. The wife later sought modification to increase the amount of support and the husband answered, asserting that the agreement was binding on the rights of the parties. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that, while the wife was estopped by the terms of the agreement from claiming any relief on her own behalf, she was not precluded from obtaining increased child support, holding (26 So.2d at 179):
"We know of no rule of law by which a father may by contract obviate or impair his obligation to support his minor children, except possibly by a contract with the duly appointed Guardian . . . when such contract . . . shall have been ratified and approved by a court of competent jurisdiction."
More recently, in Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So.2d 261 (Fla.1976), the Florida Supreme Court held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Deason
...1308 (Fla.App.1992); Bloom v. Bloom, 414 So.2d 1153 (Fla.App. 1982); Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So.2d 691 (Fla. App.1980); Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1979). In fact, Florida has no dormancy provision regarding child support arrearages, because such arrearages are treated as an equit......
-
Loomis, In re
...enforcement of child support arrearages." Fowhand v. Piper, 611 So.2d 1308, 1310 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992)(quoting Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979)); see Parrish v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 525 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988). See also Mele......
-
Pyne v. Black
...(Fla.1994); Brock; Robinson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 473 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Wing v. Wing, 464 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In all of those cases, the parties made a bargain to surrender visitation......
-
Kimble v. Kimble
...to make child support payments. See 100 A.L.R.3d 1129, at § 4(c) (1980), but see 100 A.L.R.3d 1129, at § 4(a). In Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798, 799-800 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979), the court The law is clear that the parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support. Neither ......
-
Child support myths and truths: exploring the assumptions underlying Florida's statutory guidelines.
...a requirement imposed by one parent on the other, rather it is a dual obligation imposed on the parents by the state." Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). F.S. [sections] 61.13 states "the court may at any time order either or both parents who owe a duty of support to pay s......