Frazier v. Frazier

395 So. 2d 590
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 18, 1981
Docket80-675
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 395 So. 2d 590 (Frazier v. Frazier) 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
Frazier v. Frazier, 395 So. 2d 590 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

395 So.2d 590 (1981)

Charles D. FRAZIER, Appellant,
v.
Catherine K. FRAZIER, Appellee.

No. 80-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 1981.

*591 Jack F. White, Jr., Clearwater, for appellant.

Watson R. Sinden of McClure & Turville, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Charles D. Frazier appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and advances four points for our consideration. The only meritorious point is directed to the provision of the final judgment that conditioned his future visitation rights with his minor children on his timely payment of child support.

During the course of the dissolution proceeding, appellant willfully refused to keep his child support payments current. Such conduct is reprehensible, and the trial court's condition on visitation privileges was obviously directed to prevent such future conduct. However, on the authority of Acker v. Acker, 365 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); and Howard v. Howard, 143 So.2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), such conditioning of future visitation rights is improper.

We, therefore, reverse the final judgment in regard to the condition placed on appellant's visitation rights and strike the stated condition, "as long as his child support is kept current." This would not prevent the court from disallowing in the future specific visitation rights upon a showing of willful failure to pay child support. See Acker v. Acker, supra. The final judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

BOARDMAN, Acting C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.

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

Related

Sampson v. Johnson
846 A.2d 278 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
Waugh v. Waugh
679 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
In Interest of DFW
497 So. 2d 925 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
395 So. 2d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-frazier-fladistctapp-1981.