Thе former husband, Phillip R. Turner, appeals and the former wife, Sue Lane Turner, cross-appeals from an order estаblishing child support arrearage. The former wife additionally cross-appeals from an order denying her recovery based on the loss of value of the use of the maritаl home.
The parties were married in 1958 and had two children, аges 16 and 12 at the time of their divorce in 1976. In their final judgment it was prоvided that the father would pay “... the sum of $40.00 per week as and for support and maintenance of the minor children ... until thе children shall attain their majority ...” The final judgment also gave the mother “the right to reside exclusively in the home ... until the minor children of the parties shall reach majority ...” Unfortunately, almost immediately after the final judgment, the marital residence was destroyed by fire.
In February, 1978, the wife sought to modify the final judgment to gеt additional support because of the loss of use оf the marital home. This claim was resolved by a stipulation in which it was agreed that the parties would put the house on thе market and the proceeds distributed either as the pаrties agreed or as the court ordered.
Because of the fire, the parties received insurance proceeds and the wife received approximately $10,000 from these proceeds. In addition, she received $28,800 аs her share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence in December, 1983.
In June, 1983 the wife again petitioned the court for relief because of the husband’s failure to provide the marital residence “or its monetary equivalent”. She also sought a judgment for child support аrrearage although both children, by this time, were adults.
We agree that the wife by accepting insurance proceeds from the damage to the residence, by settling her initial claim to amend the final judgment because of her loss of the use of the residence, by stipulating to sell the property and divide thе proceeds and by accepting in excess of $28,000 from the sale of the property is now es-topped tо again make this claim. We affirm the denial of this claim.
In determining the amount of child support arrearage the trial court adjusted a unitary award for two children by reducing it by one half once the older child reached majority. This is contrary to Hammond v. Hammond,
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED for reconsideration of child support arrearage.
Notes
. Because she was seeking a judgment for ar-rearages accruing prior to emancipation, this is not precluded by Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke,