MARIE DEFREITAS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM DEFREITAS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of modification of child support in a domestic matter. The former wife asserts that the husband’s petition for modification was an insufficient pleading upon which to change the amount of child support. We agree and reverse. Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice. Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); and Purvis v. Carver, 303 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Here, the husband filed a petition for modification wherein he sought to have custody of the children transferred to him. The request for change of custody was denied, but the amount of child support was substantially altered.
We conclude that the order below must be reversed, but we note the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court in this matter and remand for further proceedings without prejudice to consideration of all issues of child support upon the filing of appropriate pleadings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORE, BERANEK, and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amado Evarito Garcia v. Stewart, 906 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…invoke the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate its right to the funds. The trial court was therefore without jurisdiction to disburse the funds so that its order disbursing the funds was void. See Lovett, 112 So. at 776; Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bartolucci v. McKay, 428 So. 2d 378, 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). A void final order or judgment may be attacked under rule 1.540(b). Because the March 26, 2003 order was void, we reverse the April 8, 2004 order denying the mo…
-
Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…mproperly determined matters that were not the subject of the pleadings. Under Florida law, a trial court is without jurisdiction to “hear and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see Johnson v. Johnson, 546 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by implied consent, they are to be treat…
-
In re The Est. of Helena Hatcher v. Dodd, 439 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…l court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading2 and notice. Bartolucci v. McKay, 428 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Fine v. Fine, 400 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In short: If a court should render a judgment in a case where it had jurisdiction of the parties, upon a matter entirely outside of the issues made, it would, of necessity, be arbitrary and unjust as being outside the jurisdict…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Purvis v. Carver, 303 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)