SONIA JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE H. JOHNSON, 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.
The appellate court reversed three post-decretal orders because the trial court lacked authority to modify the final judgment without the husband's request for modification, improperly applied children's social security benefits to the father's mortgage, and unauthorized application of boat sale proceeds to the husband's attorney fees.
A trial court lacks authority to modify a final judgment by relieving a party of support obligations or redirecting assets without that party's request for modification.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to modify a final divorce judgment by relieving a party of support obligations without that party's request for modification.
[2] Children's social security benefits cannot be applied to satisfy a parent's mortgage obligation as doing so impermissibly requires the children to build the parent's equi…
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 intelligenceIn a divorce case, the trial court issued three post-decretal orders: one relieving the husband of child support for private schooling, one directing …
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 Post-Decretal Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse three post-decretal orders for the following reasons: (a) the trial court lacked authority to modify the final judgment by relieving the husband of the burden of paying future child support for private schooling when the husband did not request modification of the judgment, Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Pace v. Pace, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sweetland v. Gauntlett, 460 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see Bell v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 487 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); (b) the trial court erred in ordering that the children’s social security benefits be applied to the husband’s mortgage obligation because the order impermissibly requires the children to build the father’s equity in the former marital home, see Spikes v. Spikes, 396 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and (c) the trial court lacked authority to order that the sale proceeds of the jointly-owned boat be applied to the attorneys’ fees owed by the husband when the order effectively modified the final judgment without the husband’s requesting modification, Cortina; Pace; Sweetland; Smithwick, and the wife did not authorize her attorney to compromise her interest in the boat, see Foden v. Stambaugh, 405 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Service Corp., 326 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betty J. Biddle & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Salozzo, 522 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ge in circumstances has been demonstrated, see Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), such circumstances were not presented by petition or proof. See Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837, 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Johnson v. Johnson, 489 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Sweetland v. Gauntlett, 460 [*104] So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Finally, the record does not contain a certified copy of the Final Judgment of Dissolution and the prop…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Renita Penfield Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Serv. Corp., 326 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Waskin v. Waskin, 346 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Smith v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Sweetland v. Gauntlett, 460 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Bell v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 487 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Francina Pace v. Pace, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Long v. Bogaert, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)