L.S.H. v. P.L.H.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.S.H. v. P.L.H.

739 So. 2d 1264, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11482, 1999 WL 641440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 1999

DocketNo. 98-02313

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 739 So. 2d 1264 (L.S.H. v. P.L.H.) 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

L.S.H. v. P.L.H., 739 So. 2d 1264, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11482, 1999 WL 641440 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution that approved and incorporated a settlement agreement between the wife, L.S.H., and the husband, P.L.H. L.S.H. challenges the circuit court’s refusal to set aside the settlement agreement. We find no error in the court’s decision to hold the wife to the agreement, save in one respect. The agreement included a provision in which she waived child support for a minor child. While the court found that the wife freely and voluntarily entered into the settlement, and that there was no fraud or material misrepresentation of fact, its order did not specifically address the waiver of child support. We reverse the final judgment only to the extent that it incorporates this provision of the settlement agreement, and remand for further proceedings on this issue.

In the settlement agreement, L.S.H. acknowledged that P.L.H. was not the biological father of a child conceived and born during the marriage.¹ While this stipulation is valid, the wife’s waiver of child support cannot bind the court. See Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464 (1933); Cherna v. Cherna, 427 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held that a man who is not a child’s natural or adoptive father, and who has not otherwise contracted for the child’s care and support, has no duty to pay child support. The settlement agreement and the court’s orders do not address the question of whether P.L.H. contracted to support the child. Moreover, we have recently noted that nothing in Daniel changes the rule that equitable estoppel may compel a husband to support a child that is not biologically his own. See C.C.A. v. J.M.A., Case No. 98-23695, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 790660 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 6,1999); see also D.F. v. Department of Revenue, 736 So2d.782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

We reverse the portion of the final judgment that incorporates the wife’s agreement to waive child support. We remand for further proceedings on the questions of whether P.L.H. contracted to support the minor child, or whether he is equitably estopped from denying a support obligation.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The circuit court entered a final judgment of dissolution that approved and incorporated a settlement agreement between the wife, L.S.H., and the husband, P.L.H. L.S.H. challenges the circuit court’s refusal to set aside the settlement agreement. We find no error in the court’s decision to hold the wife to the agreement, save in one respect. The agreement included a provision in which she waived child support for a minor child. While the court found that the wife freely and voluntarily entered into the settlement, and that there was no fraud or material misrepresentation of fact, its order did not specifically address the waiver of child support. We reverse the final judgment only to the extent that it incorporates this provision of the settlement agreement, and remand for further proceedings on this issue.

In the settlement agreement, L.S.H. acknowledged that P.L.H. was not the biological father of a child conceived and born during the marriage.¹ While this stipulation is valid, the wife’s waiver of child support cannot bind the court. See Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464 (1933); Cherna v. Cherna, 427 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In Daniel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held that a man who is not a child’s natural or adoptive father, and who has not otherwise contracted for the child’s care and support, has no duty to pay child support. The settlement agreement and the court’s orders do not address the question of whether P.L.H. contracted to support the child. Moreover, we have recently noted that nothing in Daniel changes the rule that equitable estoppel may compel a husband to support a child that is not biologically his own. See C.C.A. v. J.M.A., Case No. 98-23695, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 790660 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 6,1999); see also D.F. v. Department of Revenue, 736 So2d.782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

We reverse the portion of the final judgment that incorporates the wife’s agreement to waive child support. We remand for further proceedings on the questions of whether P.L.H. contracted to support the minor child, or whether he is equitably estopped from denying a support obligation.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 So. 2d 1264, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11482, 1999 WL 641440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lsh-v-plh-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack