DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ACACIA E. DAVIS, Individually

Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH HENGEN, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of

CLIFFORD DAVIS, ACACIA E. DAVIS, as Co-Personal Representative of 

the Estate of CLIFFORD DAVIS, and THE ESTATE OF CLIFFORD 

DAVIS, deceased,

Appellees.

No. 4D15-966

[May 11, 2016]

CORRECTED OPINION

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; Howard H. Harrison and Roger B. 

Colton, Senior Judges; L.T. Case No. 2014CA010928XXXXMB.

Douglas H. Reynolds and Jeffrey M. Fauer of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Julie H. Littky-Rubin and Christa L. McCann of Clark, Fountain, La 

Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

MAY, J.

Does a child, who has reached the age of majority, have standing to 

bring a claim for unpaid child support owed pursuant to a marital support 

agreement if the parent has filed a claim? The answer: no. We therefore 

affirm.

The parents entered into a marital and property settlement agreement, 

which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution. Pursuant 

to the agreement, the father was obligated to pay the mother monthly child 

support for their daughter. The father died intestate, survived by his 

daughter, the mother, and his current wife. At the time of his death, the 

father owed child support arrearages.
2

The daughter and current wife were appointed co-personal 

representatives of the father’s estate. The mother filed a statement of claim 

against the estate for the child support arrearages. The mother later filed 

an amended statement of claim and an independent complaint against the 

co-personal representatives and estate for the arrearages.

The daughter also filed a statement of claim against the estate for the 

child support arrearages. The current wife, as co-personal representative,

objected to the daughter’s claim. The daughter also filed an independent

complaint against the co-personal representatives and the estate for the 

child support arrearages. 

The current wife moved to dismiss the daughter’s complaint, arguing 

she lacked standing to pursue the child support arrearages because the 

rights vested solely in her mother. The daughter then moved to consolidate 

her action with the mother’s action. The daughter also petitioned the 

probate court for appointment of an administrator ad litem because she 

was unable to represent the estate as a co-personal representative due to 

her statement of claim against it. 

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for three reasons: (1) a 

conflict in counsel representing the mother and daughter for the same 

arrearages; (2) a conflict in the daughter as co-personal representative and 

claimant; and (3) the mother having the vested right to the child support, 

citing Kranz v. Kranz, 661 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The trial court 

denied the daughter’s motion to consolidate, and her motion for rehearing. 

The daughter now appeals.

The daughter argues the trial court erred in dismissing her claim for 

lack of standing and conflicts of interest. The current wife responds that 

only the mother has the vested right to collect the child support 

arrearages. The daughter replies that her mother’s vested right does not 

prevent her from pursuing the same claim.

We have de novo review. Agee v. Brown, 73 So. 3d 882, 885 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2011).

“Parents have a legal duty to support their children.” Dep’t of Revenue 

v. Jackson, 846 So. 2d 486, 492 (Fla. 2003); see § 61.09, Fla. Stat. (2015). 

“An obligation to pay accrued support is not extinguished even when the 

child reaches majority, notwithstanding that the parent’s obligation to 

support normally ends when a child reaches eighteen.” Kranz, 661 So. 2d 

at 878 (citation omitted).
3

We have held that a child has standing to enforce rights that ripen after 

the child reaches the age of majority. Brown v. Brown, 484 So. 2d 1282 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1986). But we have never held, nor has any other court 

held, that the rights that accrue during the age of minority can be enforced 

by anyone other than the child’s legal representative.1

We affirm. We do not reach the conflict of interest issues raised as they 

are unnecessary to our holding.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., and TAYLOR J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 We are aware the Third District Court of Appeal has stated in dicta that a child 

can pursue child support arrearages as a third party beneficiary. See Newman 

v. Newman, 459 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Nevertheless, the court 

actually held the custodial parent of an emancipated child retained the right to 

enforce child support arrearages that accrued before the child’s emancipation. 

Id. Our opinion should not be read to prevent an emancipated child from 

pursuing child support arrearages if the parent is unable or unwilling to pursue 

them.