Daugherty v. Daugherty, 45587
| Decision Date | 22 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45587,45587 |
| Citation | 308 So.2d 24 |
| Parties | W. Emory DAUGHERTY, Petitioner, v. Georgette DAUGHERTY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edmond W. Frank, Miami, for petitioner.
Roberta Fulton Fox, of Gold & Fox, Coral Gables, for respondent.
This cause is before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari based on an alleged conflict with the decisions in King v. King, 271 So.2d 159 (Fla.App.1st, 1973); Eaton v. Eaton, 238 So.2d 166 (Fla.App.4th, 1970), and Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla.1952). Pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A., we have jurisdiction.
On June 13, 1969, the Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, entered a final judgment of divorce, incorporating a property settlement agreement wherein the husband agreed to pay the wife the sum of $60.00 per week as child support 'except that as each of the three children attains the Age of majority, marries, becomes self-supporting or deceased, said payments would be reduced by $15.00 per week.'
On June 13, 1969, the date of the final judgment described above, 'the age of majority' meant 21 years of age.
On July 1, 1973, Fla.Stat. § 1.01(14), F.S.A., changed the definition of 'majority' and 'minority' so that a minor was defined as 'a person who has not attained the age of 18 years.'
The husband on July 1, 1973, stopped making support payments for the 19-year-old child of the parties, and shortly thereafter the wife brought proceedings to enforce the support provisions of the final judgment.
The trial court found that by operation of law, the husband's obligation to make support payments to the 19-year-old ended when Fla.Stat. § 1.01(14), F.S.A., became effective, notwithstanding the agreement. The wife appealed.
The District Court of Appeal, Third District, properly reversed the trial court. Fla.Stat. § 1.01(14), F.S.A., provides:
'Section 1. Subsection (14) of section 1.01, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
'1.01 Definitions
'In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
'(14) The word 'minor' includes any person who has not attained the age of 18 years.
'This act shall operate prospectively and not retrospectively and shall not affect the rights and obligations existing prior to the effective date of this act.'
Nothing contained in Section 2 above prohibits support payments to one over 18 years.
Section 3 clearly states that the provisions of this statute were to be construed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orlandella v. Orlandella
...423 U.S. 887, 96 S.Ct. 181, 46 L.Ed.2d 118 (1975); Vicino v. Vicino, 30 Conn.Sup. 49, 298 A.2d 241 (Sup.Ct.1972). Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla.1975); Monticello v. Monticello, 271 Md. 168, 174, 315 A.2d 520 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 880, 95 S.Ct. 145, 42 L.Ed.2d 120 (1......
-
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Child Support Enforcement v. Holland
...and a dissolution decree. I continue to think Cronebaugh is in conflict with the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So.2d 24 (Fla.1975). Although Daugherty did not address specifically the former wife's standing to enforce and collect child support obligations f......
-
Kern v. Kern
...he has the opportunity to learn a trade, occupation or profession.3 See, e. g., Finn v. Finn, 312 So.2d 726 (Fla.1975); Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So.2d 24 (Fla.1975); Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Coalla v. Coalla, 330 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Dwyer v. D......
-
Marriage of Harless, In re
...964, 301 N.E.2d 167, 170-171 (1973). A conflict among different appellate divisions in Florida was resolved in Daugherty v. Daugherty, 308 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla.1975), where that state's Supreme Court held a statutory reduction in the age of majority did not terminate support payments under a d......