Siderias v. Kilpatrick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siderias v. Kilpatrick

648 So. 2d 786, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12473, 1994 WL 708229

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1564

StatusPublished

This text of 648 So. 2d 786 (Siderias v. Kilpatrick) 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

Siderias v. Kilpatrick, 648 So. 2d 786, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12473, 1994 WL 708229 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts there is no support in the record for the trial judge to have refused to terminate his duty to provide child support for his over-age children. He also says the judge erred by failing to make specific findings regarding the needs of these children. As to his latter argument, appellant is correct. Where a trial court has made no finding that a child over the age of eighteen is dependent, a continuation of child support payments is improper. The eviden-tiary findings should be specifically set out in the order. Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Spurlock v. Spurlock, 552 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Soles v. Soles, 536 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact which will support the requirement. As to whether the court’s order is supported by the record; we must lay that problem back on [787]*787appellant. He provided this court with no transcript.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts there is no support in the record for the trial judge to have refused to terminate his duty to provide child support for his over-age children. He also says the judge erred by failing to make specific findings regarding the needs of these children. As to his latter argument, appellant is correct. Where a trial court has made no finding that a child over the age of eighteen is dependent, a continuation of child support payments is improper. The eviden-tiary findings should be specifically set out in the order. Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Spurlock v. Spurlock, 552 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Soles v. Soles, 536 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact which will support the requirement. As to whether the court’s order is supported by the record; we must lay that problem back on [787]*787appellant. He provided this court with no transcript.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 786, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12473, 1994 WL 708229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siderias-v-kilpatrick-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack