PATRICIA L. LELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH WILLIAM FRICKE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mother appealed an order denying her petition for child support under URESA after the trial court improperly granted the father's petition for modification of visitation rights within the URESA proceeding and suspended child support until visitation was allowed. The court reversed, holding that URESA proceedings can address only the duty of support, not visitation rights, and that the trial court erred in combining the URESA and dissolution modification proceedings.
The court held that a trial court erred in determining visitation rights within a URESA proceeding, as URESA proceedings are limited to adjudication of the duty of support. The court further held that the trial court erred in combining the URESA proceeding with the dissolution modification proceeding, and that both orders must be vacated.
[1] In a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) proceeding, the only matter subject to adjudication is the duty of support.
[2] A trial court errs by determining visitation rights within a URESA proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida law is clear that in a URE-SA proceeding the only matter susceptible to adjudication is the duty of support.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that limits URESA proceedings to support matters only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in Duval County in 1976. The mother remarried and moved with the two children to Guam. The mother initiated a URESA proceedi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
By this appeal, the mother seeks review of an order denying a petition for child support. We agree the trial court erred and reverse.
The parties were divorced in Duval County in 1976. Shortly thereafter, the mother remarried and moved with the parties two children to Guam where her new husband was stationed. Subsequently, the wife initiated proceedings under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URE-SA), Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, seeking support from the father, who was still re siding in Duval County. At the hearing before the Duval County Circuit Court, the father claimed he was being denied visitation. The trial judge deferred ruling on the petition for support suggesting that the father file a petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution. Thereafter, the father filed a petition for modification in the URESA proceeding seeking visitation rights with the children. (The petition bears the case number of the URESA action and the certificate of service states that a copy was sent to the mother and the State Attorney in Duval County handling the URESA action.)
Approximately one month after the father filed his petition, the court entered an order granting the father’s petition for modification conferring on him visitation rights at all reasonable times and places and stating that his requirement to pay child support was suspended until the mother accorded him the right to visit with and be visited by the children and until he was actually permitted by his former wife to visit and be visited by the children. We note that the order suspends support payments even though the husband did not request such relief in his petition. At the same time, the court entered an order denying the petition for child support attaching to that order and incorporating therein, the order granting the petition for modification. This appeal by the mother ensued.
Florida law is clear that in a URE-SA proceeding the only matter susceptible to adjudication is the duty of support. Davis v. Davis, 376 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Vecellio v. Veceilio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). Therefore, we hold the trial court erred in determining the husband’s visitation rights in the URE-SA proceeding and hinging the duty of support on the father being allowed to visit his children.
Although the order granting the father’s petition for modification bears the case number of the dissolution action and was presumably made a part of the case file in the dissolution action, we find that for all intents and purposes the two proceedings were combined which was clearly error under established Florida case law. Therefore both orders must be vacated.
In so holding, we render no opinion as to whether under the factual circumstances of this case, the father’s petition for modification, if properly filed in the dissolution proceeding and made a separate action from the URESA proceeding, giving the wife proper notice of the issues to be tried and an opportunity to be heard, states grounds for relief. We merely observe that this record indicates that the final judgment of dissolution did not prohibit the mother from removing the children from Florida nor did it address the father’s visitation rights. Concomitantly, we observe that this record does not indicate any flagrant violation of visitation rights set forth in any court order. Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Ernst v. Ernst, 214 Cal.App.2d 174, 29 Cal.Rptr. 478 (1963).
Accordingly, the order granting the petition for modification and the order denying the petition for support are vacated and declared null and void and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Arlen Jones, 471 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Under URESA the court may address only matters of support and may not consider issues pertaining to visitation. State ex rel. Rock v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Carroll v. Carroll, 415 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Leland v. Fricke, 376 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Furthermore, the court may not condition the payment of support upon the granting of visitation. Rock; Carroll; Leland. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in addressing these visitation issues. In all other respects…
-
State v. Ridge, 483 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State ex rel. Rock v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Fla. Dept. of H.R.S. o/b/o Ciferni v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Carroll v. Carroll, 415 So. 2d 102 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Leland v. Fricke, 376 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Furthermore, the court may not condition the payment of support upon the granting of visitation. See Newbold v. Newbold, 472 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Jones; Rock; Ci…
Authorities Cited
- Loehe v. State, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Davis v. Davis, 376 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)