Opinion ID: 1401436
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scully v. Scully[7]

Text: James T. Scully and Raye Scully divorced in June 1991. At the time of the divorce, their twins, Amy and Jamie, were eleven years old. In April 1991 the parties entered into a settlement agreement that the court incorporated into the divorce decree. The parties agreed that Raye would have physical custody of the children and that James would pay child support of $1,350 per month for the minor children. The twins turned eighteen on August 25, 1997. While Amy had finished high school by this time, Jamie still had to complete his senior year. Because Jamie continued to live with his mother during the school year, Raye moved to continue child support for Jamie in September 1997. James opposed the motion, claiming that Raye had utterly fail[ed] to make any showing of a material change in circumstances and that the settlement agreement accom[m]odate[d] post-majority educational support for Jamie by ... consider[ing] [James's] spousal support payments as family support. Judge Rene J. Gonzalez granted Raye's motion for continued support. After reviewing the settlement agreement, he specifically found that the spousal support was intended by the parties to assist Raye Scully to `eventually become economically self-sufficient' and was not child support. James appeals.