Plant v. Plant
This text of 504 So. 2d 44 (Plant v. Plant) 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.
Opinion
Finding no merit in any of the points raised by appellant, we affirm the trial court’s Order on Pending Motions.1 Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Brown v. Brown, 484 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 4th [45]*45DCA 1986); Massey v. Massey, 443 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Albert v. Albert, 186 So.2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); see Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (ambiguities in support provisions of settlement agreement are interpreted according to the best interests of the children involved).
We reverse, however, that portion of the Order denying the wife’s motion for modification of child support for the parties’ son Wade, who reached the age of eighteen prior to completing high school, and remand the cause for the trial court to determine whether Wade was a dependent person entitled to support within the meaning of section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes (1983).2 See Evans v. Evans, 456 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); cf. Stultz v. Stultz, 504 So.2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Keenan v. Keenan, 440 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (en banc).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
504 So. 2d 44, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 787, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plant-v-plant-fladistctapp-1987.