Title: Linda L. Wattenbarger v. Frank J. Wattenbarger

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC95228
____________
LINDA L. WATTENBARGER,
Petitioner,
vs.
FRANK J. WATTENBARGER,
Respondent.
[September 7, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Wattenbarger v. Wattenbarger, 728 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision  in Boot v.
Sapp, 714 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, 
§ 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The Wattenbargers’ marriage was dissolved on October 3, 1990.  Pursuant
to the dissolution order, Linda Wattenbarger was granted primary residential
responsibility for the parties’ two minor children, and John Wattenbarger was
-2-
ordered to pay child support for both children.  
On May 19, 1997, Linda filed a petition to modify or clarify the judgment
entered on the dissolution order, seeking in part to continue child support for the
couple’s oldest child, Scott, past his eighteenth birthday “so long as [he]
remain[ed] in high school, not to exceed [his] nineteenth birthday.”  Scott was born
on May 21, 1979.  
The respondent argued that child support could not be continued as a matter
of law because Scott had no reasonable expectation of graduating prior to his
nineteenth birthday.  Section 743.07(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides:
This section shall not prohibit any court of competent
jurisdiction from requiring support for a dependent
person beyond the age of 18 years when such
dependency is because of a mental or physical incapacity
which began prior to such person reaching majority or if
the person is dependent in fact, is between the ages of 18
and 19, and is still in high school, performing in good
faith with a reasonable expectation of graduation before
the age of 19.
(Emphasis added.)   Scott’s graduation ceremony was scheduled for June 2, 1998,
eleven days after his nineteenth birthday.  
The petitioner maintained that Scott’s right to graduation would vest, i.e., he
would be entitled to a diploma, prior to his nineteenth birthday thus meeting the
requirements of section 743.07(2).  The trial court agreed and ordered the
1 The trial court, although it cited 15A Am. Jur. 2d Colleges and Universities  § 28 (1976) in its
order, appears to have  relied on the definition of graduation found in 15A Am. Jur. 2d Colleges and
Universities § 31 (1976), which provides: “Universities and colleges are usually vested with the power
to graduate and to confer degrees and diplomas on students who have complied with the requirements
imposed by the regulations of such institutions.  Where a student matriculates at a college or university,
a contractual relationship is established under which, upon compliance with all the requirements of
graduation, he is entitled to a degree or diploma.” 
-3-
respondent to continue child support payments for Scott through May 1998.1  
On appeal, the First District held that Scott did not have a reasonable
expectation of graduating before his nineteenth birthday given that he would attend
commencement eleven days after his birthday: “Because Scott’s nineteenth
birthday was on May 21, 1998, and his high school graduation date was June 2,
1998, he did not have a reasonable expectation of graduation before the age of 19. 
Therefore, he did not meet the criteria for continued support beyond age eighteen
listed in the statute.”  Wattenbarger, 728 So. 2d at 278.  Further, the First District
reasoned that to hold the contrary would be an “incorrect application of the plain
language of section 743.07(2) and one inconsistent with precedent.”  Id. 
This same “reasonable expectation of graduation” language was read liberally
by the Fourth District in Boot v. Sapp, in reversing and remanding a trial court’s
order denying a petition for modification of child support for twin sons who were
to turn nineteen several days prior to their graduation ceremony: 
We construe the term “graduation” in section 743.07(2),
-4-
Florida Statutes, liberally especially under the
circumstances where the children are dependent and in
need of child support during their last year of high
school; to deny support for the entire year would not be
within the spirit or intent of the law as it relates to child
support.  Chapters 61 and 743 of the Florida Statutes
should be read together as related to child support and
should be liberally construed to mitigate potential harm to
children.
714 So. 2d at 580.  We find the Fourth District’s reading compatible with the
“reasonable expectation of graduation” language of section 743.07(2). 
Accordingly, we quash the First District’s decision in Wattenbarger, approve Boot,
and remand for proceedings consistent therewith.  
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
First District - Case No. 1D97-4706 
(Bay County)
George W. Blow, III, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
-5-
Scott T. Orsini, St. Petersburg, Florida,
for Respondent