ROBERT SHECK, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHRYN WESTLUND, 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.
In a paternity case, the court enforced an oral agreement between the parents to increase child support from $800 to $2,500 per month in exchange for the mother ceasing work to raise the child at home. The father appealed, claiming the mother breached the agreement by continuing to use daycare, but the court affirmed the enforceability of the oral agreement based on evidence of minimal current daycare use.
The oral agreement is enforceable based on the current record, which supports a finding that the mother's present use of daycare is minimal and that she is indeed raising the child at home. However, if the father can show by competent evidence that the mother uses daycare substantially as she did before the agreement, he may seek modification based on a change of circumstances.
[1] An oral agreement to modify a child support order is enforceable if supported by consideration.
[2] A party's substantial use of daycare may constitute a material breach of an oral agreement to raise a child at home, potentially warranting modification of child support.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court found that the oral agreement was enforceable and ordered that the increased payments be continued.”
Establishes that the trial court upheld the enforceability of the oral modification agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter paternity was established and child support was set at $800 per month with the mother having residential custody, the parties made an oral agree…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
In this paternity action, Mr. Sheck admitted that he was the father and conceded that Ms. Westlund should have residential custody of the child, subject to appropriate visitation. Based on those admissions, the court found Sheck to be the father and ordered that he pay $800 per month as child support. Subsequently, the parties orally agreed that Westlund would cease working and stay at home to “raise the child.” In return, Sheck agreed to increase the child support to $2,500 per month. He paid this amount for a few months but then stopped. Westlund sought an order requiring Sheck to continue making the increased payments. Sheck defended on the ground that Westlund had breached the oral agreement by continuing to place the child in day-care rather than caring for the child at home.
The court found that the oral agreement was enforceable and ordered that the increased payments be continued. The court did not rule on the issue of Westlund’s breach based on her continued use of daycare. Because the record does not reflect to what extent Westlund is using day-care, we affirm the court’s ruling that the oral agreement is enforceable. This affirmance is based on the current record, which supports a finding that the mother’s present use of day-care is minimal and that she is indeed raising the child at home. If the father can show by competent evidence that the mother uses day-care substantially as she did before the oral agreement, then he may wish to file for modification based on a change of circumstances from those upon which the court relied in upholding the oral modification of the court’s original order. AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.