STANLEY SITZER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCIA SITZER, 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.
Trial court's striking of ex-wife's first modification motion for discovery non-compliance did not bar jurisdiction over a subsequent modification motion where the wife later disclosed all requested information and the court extended rehabilitative alimony based on changed circumstances.
A trial court's dismissal of a modification motion for discovery violations does not divest it of jurisdiction to consider a subsequent modification motion when the movant has since complied with discovery and alleged further changed circumstances.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to modify alimony and support orders under Florida Statute § 61.14 even after striking a prior modification motion for discovery non-co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley Sitzer appealed a trial court order that struck his ex-wife's first motion to modify alimony and child support for failure to answer discovery…
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 Modification Of Alimony And Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s striking of the ex-wife’s first motion for modification of a final judgment to increase alimony and child support for failure to answer questions in discovery proceedings was no jurisdictional bar to a subsequent modification extending rehabilitative alimony entered on a new motion alleging further changes in circumstances where the wife appeared and disclosed all information originally sought. Appellant, citing Minor v. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1970) and Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1964), relies on the rule that a person initiating a judicial proceeding will not be allowed to carry on the litigation while at the same time invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege in order to shield herself from legitimate discovery procedures. However, as wife had already made disclosures, the rule did not apply.
When, as here, the parties have entered into an agreement for alimony and support in connection with a dissolution of marriage, the court retains jurisdiction to enter orders increasing, decreasing or confirming the amount of alimony or support as equity requires. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1979); see Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to consider a petition for modification or extension of rehabilitative alimony as long as it is filed within the period of rehabilitation provided by the final judgment).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1964)
- Del O'Neal v. State, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1970)
- Minor v. Basil F. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1970)