Kowalski v. Kowalski

315 So. 2d 497
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 20, 1975
Docket74-1141
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 315 So. 2d 497 (Kowalski v. Kowalski) 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
Kowalski v. Kowalski, 315 So. 2d 497 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

315 So.2d 497 (1975)

John KOWALSKI, Appellant,
v.
Bertha KOWALSKI, Appellee.

No. 74-1141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 20, 1975.
Rehearing Denied August 1, 1975.

*498 Tobey C. Hockett, of Hockett, Silver, Spalding & Lewis, Sarasota, for appellant.

George R. McLain, of Boylston, Johnson, Harnden & McLain, Sarasota, for appellee.

McNULTY, Chief Judge.

The appellant-husband, petitioner below in this dissolution of marriage proceeding, appeals from the monetary aspects of the final judgment of dissolution. He raises only one meritorious point on appeal, that relating to an award of child support in the sum of $60.00 per week for his son John, who was then seventeen and one half years of age, "until the child reaches the age of twenty-one (21) or completes or discontinues his college education, whichever shall first occur."

While some of us may wonder why a father would expend the time, money and effort to complain to us because of an order compelling support of his son while the son attempts to secure a college education, we are nevertheless unaware of any authority in this state to enter such an order absent an agreement to that effect on the part of the father.[1]

In view whereof, the judgment of dissolution and all other aspects of the final judgment of dissolution should be and they are hereby affirmed; but to the extent the final judgment orders child support for and after the eighteenth birthday of the minor child of the parties hereto the same should be, and it is hereby, reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Cf. Perla v. Perla (Fla. 1952), 58 So.2d 689; White v. White (Fla.App. 1st, 1974), 296 So.2d 619 and cases cited therein.

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

Related

Grapin v. Grapin
450 So. 2d 853 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Grapin v. Grapin
430 So. 2d 926 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Thomas v. Thomas
427 So. 2d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Nicolay v. Nicolay
387 So. 2d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Blum v. Blum
382 So. 2d 52 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Genoe v. Genoe
373 So. 2d 940 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Rollings v. Rollings
362 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Kern v. Kern
360 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Cyr v. Cyr
354 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Coalla v. Coalla
330 So. 2d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Krogen v. Krogen
320 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Kowalski v. Kowalski
319 So. 2d 31 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
315 So. 2d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-v-kowalski-fladistctapp-1975.