The section
A community property trust does not adversely affect the right of a child of the settlor spouses to support, pursuant to s. 61.30 or the applicable law of another jurisdiction, that either spouse would be required to give under the applicable laws of the settlor spouses’ state of domicile.
Section 736.1509, Florida Statutes. Created in 2021 and never amended.
One sentence, and it is a floor. Whatever else the arrangement does to the spouses’ property, it does not reduce what a child is owed.
Read does not adversely affect. The section is not framed as an exception a claimant must invoke, or as a power in a court to disregard the trust. It says the right is simply unaffected, which puts the burden of the arrangement where it belongs.
Written for people who do not live here
The most interesting feature of the section is that it looks outside Florida twice in one sentence.
The support may be owed pursuant to s. 61.30 or the applicable law of another jurisdiction, and the obligation is the one arising under the applicable laws of the settlor spouses’ state of domicile.
That is not decorative drafting. Section 736.1505(1) opens the Act to couples whether both, one, or neither is domiciled in the state, so a community property trust may be created under Florida law by spouses living anywhere. Their children’s support rights will usually arise under the law of wherever the family actually lives.
A protective provision that only mentioned Florida law would have missed most of the cases it needs to cover. The Legislature saw that and drafted for it.
The same policy, elsewhere in the chapter
Florida applies this instinct consistently. Section 736.0503 creates an exception to spendthrift protection for a child, spouse or former spouse holding a judgment or court order for support, and our page on it covers the Florida decisions allowing garnishment of distributions, including those paid to third parties on a beneficiary’s behalf.
So a spendthrift clause does not defeat a support order, and neither does a community property trust. Different structures, same floor.
It is worth reading alongside section 736.1506, which governs what creditors generally can reach. That section exposes one spouse’s half to that spouse’s own debts, and permits the agreement to expose more. This section is narrower and stronger. It is not about what can be reached, but about a right that the arrangement cannot diminish at all.
The wording worth noticing
The section protects a child of the settlor spouses.
On its face that describes a child of both. Whether it covers a child of only one spouse, which is common where a community property trust is created in a second marriage, is not addressed by the section and no decision has considered it.
We flag it rather than resolve it. There is a strong argument that the public policy behind the section applies identically to any child either spouse must support, and the section’s own reference to support that either spouse would be required to give points that way. But the opening words say what they say, and a page should not paper over the question.
No court has construed this section
Our review found no citing decision, with a Florida court filter and nationwide, at every precedential status.
That is unsurprising for a provision of this kind. It works by making an argument unavailable, and arguments that are unavailable do not get made. A parent facing a support obligation is not going to run the point that a trust reduced it, because this sentence answers it in advance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a community property trust reduce child support?
No. A community property trust does not adversely affect the right of a child of the settlor spouses to support that either spouse would be required to give under the applicable laws of the spouses' state of domicile.
Which support law applies?
Section 61.30, Florida's child support guidelines, or the applicable law of another jurisdiction. Which one depends on the settlor spouses' state of domicile.
Why does the section mention other jurisdictions?
Because the Act is open to nonresidents. Section 736.1505(1) lets spouses use a community property trust whether both, one, or neither is domiciled in Florida, so the support law that matters may not be Florida's.
Does this apply to a child from a previous relationship?
The section refers to a child of the settlor spouses. Whether a child of only one spouse falls within that wording is not addressed by any decision.
Is there an equivalent rule elsewhere in the Trust Code?
Yes. Section 736.0503 creates an exception to spendthrift protection for a child, spouse or former spouse holding a support order, which is the same policy applied to a different structure.
Has a court applied this section?
No. Our review found no citing decision in Florida or nationwide.
Common Situations
You owe child support and have a trust. The trust does not reduce the obligation.
You do not live in Florida. The section applies your domicile's support law.
The child is from one spouse's earlier relationship. The wording refers to a child of the settlor spouses, and is untested.
You are considering a community property trust. This is one consequence you cannot draft around.
Sources of Law
- Section 736.1509, Florida Statutes (2025). Created by s. 37, ch. 2021-183, effective July 1, 2021.
- Section 61.30, Florida Statutes, the child support guidelines.
- Section 736.0503, Florida Statutes, the equivalent exception to spendthrift protection.
- Section 736.1505(1), Florida Statutes, which opens the Act to nonresident spouses.
- Joseph M. Percopo, “Understanding the New Florida Community Property Trust,” The Florida Bar Journal, Part I at Vol. 96, No. 4 (July/August 2022) and Part II at Vol. 96, No. 5 (September/October 2022). We tried twice to read it and could not. The Florida Bar’s site refused access to a browser, not merely to an automated request, and the Internet Archive was returning errors on both attempts. The copies we located elsewhere were paywalled extracts. We list it as further reading and have relied on none of it.
- No Florida court has cited this section. Our review found no citing document at any precedential status, searched both with a Florida court filter and nationwide, and we confirmed every query returned a count rather than an error.
- Decisions discussed here are published opinions in other parties’ cases. They are not matters handled by this firm and they predict nothing about any reader’s case. No commercial citator pass has been run on this research.
Updated on August 17, 2026. Reviewed by Kevin D. Klagge, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 99502. Attorney Kevin Klagge represents families, businesses, and international clients in estate and tax planning, business structuring, and international law, with a focus on Florida legal tools. He litigates estate and business issues in court. General information about Florida law and published court decisions, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created. Reading this page does not make us your lawyers. Please do not send confidential details until we have connected.
