Butler v. Butler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Butler v. Butler

409 So. 2d 517, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1982

DocketNo. 81-614

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 517 (Butler v. Butler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butler v. Butler, 409 So. 2d 517, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19224 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in ordering, under section 742.041, Florida Statutes (1979), him to pay as sup[518]*518port for two children the amount of $100 per week when the only evidence before the court was that, as a self-styled artist and minister, his average annual income for the preceding four years was only between $100 and $250. Although appellant has heretofore liquidated assets for other purposes, he argues here that in setting child support the trial court cannot take into consideration his substantial inherited non-income producing assets, because that would require him to invade his principal assets. A parent’s duty to support minor dependent children is one of the highest obligations known to morality and law. The trial judge can consider a parent’s ability to meet that duty in any manner, including the parent’s ability to earn support money or to acquire it from any source including unearned income from assets or the reinvestment or, if necessary, sale of assets.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COWART, Judge.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in ordering, under section 742.041, Florida Statutes (1979), him to pay as sup[518]*518port for two children the amount of $100 per week when the only evidence before the court was that, as a self-styled artist and minister, his average annual income for the preceding four years was only between $100 and $250. Although appellant has heretofore liquidated assets for other purposes, he argues here that in setting child support the trial court cannot take into consideration his substantial inherited non-income producing assets, because that would require him to invade his principal assets. A parent’s duty to support minor dependent children is one of the highest obligations known to morality and law. The trial judge can consider a parent’s ability to meet that duty in any manner, including the parent’s ability to earn support money or to acquire it from any source including unearned income from assets or the reinvestment or, if necessary, sale of assets.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 So. 2d 517, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-butler-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack