Price v. Price

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Price v. Price

112 So. 3d 652, 2013 WL 1775534, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6731, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 940

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-32

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 3d 652 (Price v. Price) 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

Price v. Price, 112 So. 3d 652, 2013 WL 1775534, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6731, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 940 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David M. Price (“Former Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s order approving and incorporating the general magistrate’s report of findings and recommendations, which denied his supplemental petition to terminate child support to Jennifer P. Price (“Former Wife”). On appeal, he argues the general magistrate erred in interpreting the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which conditioned Former Husband’s continued child support obligation on the parties’ son’s full-time college attendance.

We find no competent substantial evidence to support the lower court’s finding that the parties’ son attended college on a full-time basis during the fall 2008 semester. Accordingly, Former Wife shall reimburse Former Husband for the child support paid during that time frame. We affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., and MENDOZA, C.E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

David M. Price (“Former Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s order approving and incorporating the general magistrate’s report of findings and recommendations, which denied his supplemental petition to terminate child support to Jennifer P. Price (“Former Wife”). On appeal, he argues the general magistrate erred in interpreting the parties’ marital settlement agreement, which conditioned Former Husband’s continued child support obligation on the parties’ son’s full-time college attendance.

We find no competent substantial evidence to support the lower court’s finding that the parties’ son attended college on a full-time basis during the fall 2008 semester. Accordingly, Former Wife shall reimburse Former Husband for the child support paid during that time frame. We affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., and MENDOZA, C.E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 3d 652, 2013 WL 1775534, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6731, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-price-fladistctapp-2013.