WINIFRED E. POSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON HAZEL POSEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed finding of child support delinquency, holding that the obligor's unilateral cessation of payments based on his assertion that children were not residing with the obligee was improper without seeking modification through the trial court.
A parent obligated to pay child support cannot unilaterally cease payments based on his own determination that the children are not physically residing with the custodial parent; modification must be sought through the trial court.
[1] A parent obligated to pay child support under a settlement agreement cannot unilaterally cease payments based on his own determination that the children are not residing…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and appellee had a final judgment of September 28, 1983, incorporating their agreement regarding custody of two children and requiring child…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
We affirm the order finding appellant delinquent in paying child support pursuant to the final judgment of September 28, 1983, which incorporated the parties’ agreement regarding custody of the two children and the amount of child support payments. The effect of that judgment was to require payment of forty dollars per week for the two children staying with the wife under the agreed custody arrangement until modified by the trial court upon motion and showing of reasonable grounds therefor. No attempt was made by appellant to seek modification of the order before he ceased making payments on the asserted ground that one or both children were not staying with appellee during the weeks covered by the payments. We do not accept appellant’s construction of the settlement agreement, and find no error in the trial court’s ruling that the obligation to pay was not conditioned upon appellant’s determination that the child was not physically residing with appellee during each week for which payments were to be made.
The appealed order sets forth a reasonable resolution of the problem raised by the mother’s motion to enforce child support payments which was well within the scope of discretion accorded trial judges in these circumstances. The order is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…he trial court’s order that required the ex-husband to pay the expenses for Michael’s schooling and which formed the basis for the mother’s contempt motion did not condition that obligation on Martin’s right to select the school. See Posey v. Posey, 493 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (obligation to pay child support not conditioned on ex-husband’s determination that child was actually living with ex-wife during times payments were due). The trial court’s order also required the ex-wife to pay attorney’s fees…