G. ROBERT BOLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA T. BOLTON, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary denial of the husband's child support modification petition, holding that denying modification without an evidentiary hearing violated due process rights.
The court held that denying a petition for modification of child support without an evidentiary hearing violates due process rights. The trial judge must conduct a hearing upon due notice to both parties, permitting them to produce evidence regarding the modification petition.
[1] A trial court may not summarily deny a petition for modification of child support without conducting an evidentiary hearing when the petition raises disputed issues of fa…
[2] A party's due process rights are violated when a petition for modification is denied without an evidentiary hearing, despite the submission of financial affidavits.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The husband challenges the order denying his petition for modification on the ground that the denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing violated the husband's due process rights. We agree.”
Establishes the core holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing before denying a modification petition.
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' marriage was dissolved in 1981. The trial judge entered an order in March 1983 establishing a procedure requiring matters to be submitted…
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 Motion To Modify Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband appeals the summary denial of his motion for modification of child support. We reverse.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1981. Since that time, both parties have filed numerous motions and petitions and a number of hearings have been held. In an apparent effort to protect his calendar and gain some control of the situation, the trial judge entered an order sua sponte on March 24, 1983, establishing a procedure for setting hearings in the cause. The order required that any matter upon which a hearing was requested should be submitted directly to the judge together with a request for hearing and an estimate of the time involved. The order further provided that, upon receipt of the motion, the judge would then review the matter and either resolve it without the need for oral argument or hearing, or set it down for hearing with notice. No appeal was taken from that order. On October 20, 1983, the husband filed a petition for modification seeking to modify the award of child support. In regard to that petition, the trial judge directed the parties to submit financial affidavits. Both did so.
Subsequently, the trial judge entered the order herein appealed, making findings of fact on the basis of the financial affidavits and concluding that as a matter of law and fact, modification of child support was inappropriate. The husband’s petition was, therefore, denied. Subsequently, the husband filed petitions for rehearing in which he set forth arguments and evidence which he wished to present at an evidentiary hearing on his petition for modification. Those petitions were also denied.
The husband challenges the order denying his petition for modification on the ground that the denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing violated the husband’s due process rights. We agree. Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the trial judge conduct a hearing, upon due notice to both parties, on the husband’s petition for modification and permit the parties at that hearing to produce such evidence as they may wish in regard to the petition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
OTT, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boehm v. Boehm, 207 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ill hear at the appropriate time.” Despite the trial court’s indication that the former husband’s petition for modification would be considered at a future hearing, the final order on appeal summarily denies it. This was error. Cf. Bolton v. Bolton, 462 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (concluding that the trial court’s denial of a petition for modification of child support without an evidentiary hearing violated the former husband’s due process rights). We reverse this portion of the order and remand for a…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sykes v. Louie L. Wainwright, 354 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)