Summary
affirming in one paragraph decision the trial court's holding that obligation to pay college expenses for child was contractual rather than child support obligation that could be enforced by child rather than mother
Summary of this case from Chen v. ChenOpinion
No. 94-3269.
July 19, 1995.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Bradford County, James Tomlinson, J.
H. Stephen Pennypacker of Pennypacker Smith, Gainesville, for appellant.
Dudley P. Hardy of Hardy Leukel; Darla Jean Christopher of Brown and Christopher, Starke, for appellee.
Appellant, Brenda L. Farnsworth, appeals an order which terminated the alimony obligation of her former husband, Harold C. Farnsworth, and ruled that the former husband's obligation in the marital settlement agreement to furnish college expenses for the parties' daughter was a contractual obligation, enforceable by the daughter as a third-party beneficiary, and not a child support obligation. We conclude that the trial court's order did not constitute an abuse of discretion and, accordingly, we affirm. At oral argument of this cause, counsel agreed that, in its order on the former wife's motion for rehearing, the trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of whether the former husband's reduction in income was permanent in nature. Thus, the trial court may revisit the issue of alimony should changed circumstances be demonstrated.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.