JOHN MYER, APPELLANT,
v.
LORI-NAN KAYE, 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.
A father appealed the denial of his motion to modify child support, arguing that two of three children reaching majority and his substantial income reduction constituted grounds for modification. The court affirmed, holding that the parties' marital settlement agreement explicitly contracted away the father's right to seek modification based on emancipation of children or income reduction.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of modification, holding that the marital settlement agreement constituted a valid contract between the parties whereby the father explicitly agreed that emancipation of the older children would not constitute a change in circumstances warranting modification, and that the full $2,200 monthly amount was intended as child support for the youngest child alone after the others reached majority.
[1] A marital settlement agreement may expressly waive a party's right to seek modification of child support due to the emancipation of children.
[2] A marital settlement agreement can provide that a specific child support amount is non-modifiable and continuous, even if other children reach majority before the younges…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Father shall not request a reduction in his child support obligation for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to loss or reduction of income.”
Establishes the explicit contractual language by which the father agreed not to seek modification for any reason, including income reduction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved in 1997 and their marital settlement agreement was amended to require the father to pay $2,200 per month in 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 Motion To Modify Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The appellant father moved to modify child support, based on the fact that two of the parties’ three children had reached the age of majority, and because he had suffered a substantial reduction in income. The trial court concluded that he had contracted away reductions when some of the children reached majority and had not demonstrated a change in circumstances as to his income. We affirm.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1997, and the marital settlement agreement was later amended to provide, in regard to future child support, as follows:
The Father shall pay child support to the Mother in the amount of $2,200.00 per month commencing September 25, 2001, and continuing each month until such time as the parties’ minor child, ZIVA, turns 18 years of age. Therefore, the Father’s last child support payment of $2,200.00 per month shall be on November 25, 2008. This sum shall continue to be paid even through the parties’ other minor children will have reached the age of majority prior to ZIVA. It is the intention of the parties that this amount be non-modifiable and it be continuous so that there is not a further need for the parties to have to seek modification of child support. Both parties are aware that the Mother believes she is entitled to support in excess of $2,200.00 per month, and that the Father believes the Mother is entitled to support in a lesser amount. The Father shall not request a reduction in his child support obligation for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to loss or reduction of income. The Mother shall not request an increase in the Father’s child support obligation for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to an increase in the Father’s income.
The trial court interpreted this child support provision to be an agreement that the emancipation of the two older children would not be a change in circumstances on which modification could be based, and that the entire $2,200 a month was intended to be child support for the youngest child, once the others reached majority. We agree with the trial court’s construction of the agreement, and without further discussion, find no error in the denial of modification based on the father’s reduced income. Affirmed.
TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.