Southard v. Southard
Decision Date | 28 April 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 5D99-2895.,5D99-2895. |
Citation | 756 So.2d 251 |
Parties | Robert W. SOUTHARD, Appellant, v. Patricia F. SOUTHARD, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph E. Miniclier of Stromire, Bistline and Miniclier, Cocoa, for Appellant Robert W. Southard.
Maureen M. Matheson of Reinman, Matheson, Kostro & Vaughan, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellee Patricia F. Southard.
On May 28, 1999, the former wife, Patricia Southard, filed a motion for contempt and enforcement with the trial court which in 1985 had entered a final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Robert Southard, such judgment having incorporated a property settlement agreement. The former wife's motion alleged that paragraph 21 of the agreement incorporated in the judgment provides:
21. The Husband agrees to pay for a four (4) year college education for the children at an accredited four (4) year school of their choice, which is acceptable to the Wife, including tuition, fees, books, cost of living and other directly related educational expenses, not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per child per year.
The motion then alleged that the parties' oldest child, Stephanie, had graduated from high school and was planning to attend North Carolina State University commencing in the Fall of 1999. Patricia Southard alleged that Robert Southard had failed to respond to her letter requesting his financial support for Stephanie's college plans and that she was "led to believe that [he] would fail and refuse to pay $10,000.00 towards the child's college education expenses." A copy of her letter to her former husband was appended to the motion:
The requested relief in the former wife's motion was that the trial court enter an order:
Hearing on the motion was held on August 9, 1999, and ten days later the trial court summarily entered a money judgment, which had not been sought, for $10,000.00 against Robert Southard in favor of Patricia Southard, together with $743.12 as attorney's fees. There is no mention in the judgment of Stephanie Southard or North Carolina State University. The trial court, contrary to fundamental concepts of due process, entered a judgment unsupported by the pleadings with no notice of a hearing or trial seeking any damages whatsoever from Robert Southard, and in favor of a party who was not entitled to any monetary award because she had not advanced any of the monies he was obligated to pay. The judgment is a bare bones money judgment which may be levied on by the wife, and if the levy is successful the wife is at liberty to take the money and enjoy it on a trip to Bali Hai. The judgment is not one for specific performance to require the father to pay for his daughter's education, which was the requirement of the agreement between the parties, but rather for a flat $10,000.00 to a party who is not due one penny under any known theory of contract or tort law.
The essence of a third party beneficiary contract is that it is for the benefit of a third party—i.e., the daughter in this case—and not for one of the contracting parties. The trial court's judgment violates this principle. It may well be, as assumed by the trial court, that the natural mother would put the $10,000.00 to the proper use, the daughter's college education. But there is no legal basis to ensure that result—only the trial court's optimistic hope that the judgment creditor will do the right thing.
The cases of Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke, 415 So.2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983) and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Child Support Enforcement v. Holland, 602 So.2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) have been cited and argued by both parties on appeal. Those two cases are irrelevant because the rights sought to be enforced in those cases were statutory, not contractual. Consequently, no third party beneficiary concept was involved in either case.2 In Cronebaugh, Judge Cowart's majority opinion clearly spelled out in footnote 11 at page 742:
This opinion does not address the situation where one spouse by contract with the other has agreed to support his or her adult child but has failed to pay or provide such support. For example, when a husband has agreed to pay the cost of a college education....
Judge Upchurch's concurring opinion in Cronebaugh further clarifies that the majority opinion therein did not in any way...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riera v. Riera
...available remedy to enforce a marital settlement agreement's obligation for one parent to pay college expenses.”); Southard v. Southard, 756 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that contempt is not proper vehicle to enforce father's contractual obligation to pay adult child's colleg......
-
Lopez v. Taylor
...See In re Marriage of Smith & Maescher, 21 Cal.App 4th 100, 105, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 (Cal.Ct.App.1993); Southard v. Southard, 756 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.2000); Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho 885, 894 P.2d 118, 123 (1995); Miller v. Miller, 163 Ill.App.3d 602, 114 Ill.Dec. 682, 516 N.E.......
- State v. Robinson
-
Burkley v. Burkley, 5D04-2172.
...the age of majority or providing more child support than required by section 61.30(6), Florida Statutes. See Southard v. Southard, 756 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). ...
-
Enforcement of orders and judgments
...that husband was not entitled to credit against other child support obligations for satisfying obligation early); Southard v. Southard , 756 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th 2000) (proper vehicle to enforce portion of property settlement agreement requiring former husband to pay up to $10,000 of daught......
-
Alimony and support
...that husband was not entitled to credit against other child support obligations for satisfying obligation early); Southard v. Southard, 756 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th 2000) (proper vehicle to enforce portion of property settlement agreement requiring former husband to pay up to $10,000 of daughte......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...and amounts due for contractual obligations are not child support arrearages and cannot be enforced by contempt); Southard v. Southard, 756 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(contempt is not available remedy to enforce marital settlement agreement’s obligations for one parent to pay college exp......