Marsha B. Wiser, Chairman, Brenda M. Abrams, Chairman-Elect, Cynthia L. Greene of Melvyn B. Frumkes, P.A., Miami, and C. Edwin Rude, Jr., of Ervin, yarn, Jacobs, Odom Kitchen, Tallahassee, for The Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, amicus curiae.

McDONALD, Justice.

We have for review Grapin v. Grapin, 430 So.2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), because of conflict with Nicolay v. Nicolay, 387 So.2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 392 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1980). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and approve the decision under review.

In a 1982 dissolution action the trial court entered a final judgment that included a provision requiring Mr. Grapin to pay the expenses of his emancipated daughter's college education. The district court reversed the education costs provision in the final judgment on the grounds that a parent has no legal duty to provide post-majority support to an otherwise healthy child, absent either a finding of legal dependence or a binding contractual agreement by the parent to pay such support, neither of which conditions occurred here. We agree that a trial court may not order post-majority support simply because the child is in college and the divorced parent can afford to pay. See also Thomas v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Jones v. Jones, 421 So.2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Dwyer v. Dwyer, 327 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Kowalski v. Kowalski, 315 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 319 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1975); Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So.2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

The second district took a contrary position in Nicolay. There the district court affirmed an increase in alimony based upon the wife's need for funds to provide a college education for her children, as expected by the parties' standard of living during the marriage. 387 So.2d at 506. We disagree with this indirect method of compelling unwilling divorced parents to provide college costs for their capable adult children.

While most parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education that is increasingly necessary in today's fast-changing world, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a legal one. Parents who remain married while their children attend college may continue supporting their children even beyond age twenty-one, but such support may be conditional or may be withdrawn at any time, and no one may bring an action to enforce continued payments. It would be fundamentally unfair for courts to enforce these moral obligations of support only against divorced parents while other parents may do as they choose. As Judge Cowart pointed out in his dissent to a decision affirming a post-majority support order for a high school student:

It denies such divorced parents their constitutional right to equal treatment under law; that being the same right to voluntarily make such decisions concerning their adult children as other, undivorced parents have under law. I cannot agree with a rule of law that permits domestic relations judges to create and enforce special duties of support in favor of adult children against divorced parents which are not provided by general law equally applicable to all parents.

Owens v. Owens, 415 So.2d 855, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (Cowart, J., dissenting).

Any reliance on dictum in Finn v. Finn, 312 So.2d 726, 731 (Fla. 1975), for the proposition that parents, married or divorced, may be required to pay post-majority education support based only upon need and the ability to pay is misplaced. The dictum from Finn refers to the societal ideal of continued parental support for the education and training of these children. These statements of concern neither created a legal duty nor provided a new cause of action.

Accordingly, we approve the decision under review and disapprove Nicolay to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

Grapin v. Grapin

Supreme Court of Florida

May 17, 1984

450 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1984)

holding that the duty of a parent to provide for the college education of a child is a moral, rather than a legal, duty

Summary of this case from Tabor v. Buxton

recognizing that the “societal ideal of continued parental support for the education and training” of adult children did not create a legal duty, and characterizing a family court's order to do so as an “indirect method of compelling unwilling divorced parents to provide college costs for their capable adult children”

Summary of this case from McLeod v. Starnes

agreeing "that a trial court may not order post-majority support simply because the child is in college and the divorced parent can afford to pay"

Summary of this case from Quinones v. Quinones

requiring divorced parents to support adult child while child in college when other parents are not so compelled would be denial of equal protection

Summary of this case from Roth v. Cortina

In Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court similarly prohibited the basing of maintenance on the college expenses of emancipated children.

Summary of this case from Bailey v. Bailey

In Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that to require a divorced parent to send his or her child to college without requiring married parents also to do so would be a denial of equal protection under the law.

Summary of this case from Finley v. Scott

requiring divorced parents to support adult child while child in college when other parents are not so compelled would be denial of equal protection

Summary of this case from Rey v. Rey

In Grapin v. Grapin, 450 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that a divorced parent cannot be ordered to provide post-majority support merely because the child was in college and the parent was able to pay.

Summary of this case from Zakarin v. Zakarin

In Grapin the court ruled only that a parent has no legal duty to provide post-majority support during an offspring's college education, "absent either a finding of legal dependence or a binding contractual agreement...."

Summary of this case from Carter v. Carter

disapproving Nicolay v. Nicolay, 387 So.2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), which had affirmed an alimony award to provide children's college education

Summary of this case from Priede v. Priede

Summary of this case from Evans v. Evans

Grapin v. Grapin

Summary

Opinion

Grapin v. Grapin

Grapin v. Grapin

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Grapin v. Grapin

Summary

Opinion

Grapin v. Grapin

Grapin v. Grapin

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations