Virginia Property Settlement Agreement Custody of the children Support Divorce Fairfax Limits Prince William Loudoun

JULIUS FREDERICK RODRIGUEZ v. IDA LEE (KING) RODRIGUEZ
Court in Appeals of Virginia 1 Fredericksburg va. App. 87
Argued September 17, 1985, Decided

This agreement in pertinent part assuming that Ida would have custody of the two children of the participants "until such time so said children get through to the age of twenty-five many years of age" and, further, that Julius would pay Child Support in the sheer number of $ 160. 00 per week "until such time as both children shall reach the age of twenty-five last, at which time the support of the children can be extinguished automatically and devoid of application to any court of law. " At the lifetime of this agreement the baby were ages nine and four. The divorce decree approved, ratified, and confirmed the small print settling property. Thereafter, the trial court ordered the husband keeping to pay Child Support for both children, even though one example of these was over 18. What's left husband appealed.

Issue:

Whether the language of the 1977 divorce decree sufficiently complies with the provisions?of Code 禮 20-109. 1 so as to achieve Child Support provisions of that our parties' agreement of 1975 a phrase of the decree and enforceable equally as any provision of the company's decree?

The court held that "In the first instance, the provisions of your agreement concerning settling residing were approved, ratified who they confirmed. Child Support is not a good thing right of the custodial parent and consequently the provisions for these Child Support were not within divorce decree. In your next instance, the language every single divorce decree which "approved, ratified and confirmed" the settlement agreement is deficient in same effect as which of Code 禮 20-109. 1 gives that a court can frequently "affirm, ratify and incorporate" an agreement. The former merely approves the small of the parties nicely latter makes the agreement perhaps the divorce decree and enforceable in this way. Finally, nowhere in a divorce decree is there language ordering father to pay Child Support. Therefore, under the facts challenged here, the Chancellor lacked jurisdiction to do the father to having said that pay Child Support once the child attained the age of majority. The jurisdiction of the divorce court to maintain Child Support pursuant to a divorce is purely statutory. Security password 禮 20-103 through 109. 1 As soon as the child?reaches majority, the jurisdiction of the divorce court to provide using a support and maintenance terminates unless otherwise via agreement incorporated into the divorce decree.

Accordingly, the order of November 23, 1984, insofar when the child who what food was in his majority, will be vacated those cause remanded for further proceedings in conjuction with the views expressed herein. Nothing in this opinion are interpreted as affecting the provisions of the very Chancellor's order concerning the who has not elapsed his minority or as affecting a few other remedies the appellee could enforce the provisions of her agreement with the aid of appellant.

Disclaimer:

These summaries may appear by the SRIS Coupon Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of your Justices' opinions. The original opinions must be consulted for their robust content.

.