Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

450 So. 2d 895

Farmer v. Farmer

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-05-16

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1985

1 state decisions

Relies on Jaffee v. Jaffee · Thomas v. State · 407 So. 2d 374 - O'Brien v. O'Brien

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-05-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HERSEY, Judge.

¶1Appellant, ex-wife, appeals an order extinguishing the liability of appellee, ex-husband, to pay for the college education of his adult child.

¶2In dissolution of marriage proceedings in 1976 the parties agreed in open court that the husband would pay for the college education of the parties’ son. The stipulation was memorialized in paragraph 12 of the final judgment entered in those proceedings:

12. It is further ordered that the husband shall be responsible to provide the college education for the parties’ minor son, Ernest C. Farmer, III, providing husband’s ability to do so at the time of Ernest C. Farmer, III reaches the college age is adequate.

¶3The sole condition precedent to ex-husband’s liability under this provision is his financial ability to perform. The record contains no evidence of financial inability, nor is there evidence of any other substantial change of circumstances. Accordingly, modification was inappropriate. See e.g., O’Brien v. O’Brien, 407 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Rubin v. Rubin, 418 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We therefore reverse the order which modified the provision in paragraph 12.

¶4REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
/450/so2d/895 · .json · Public domain