THOMAS G. CENATE, APPELLANT,
v.
JANICE C. CENATE, 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 court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation provisions without appropriate pleadings, even if the issue was raised orally.
The husband appealed two orders restricting his visitation with his minor son, entered in response to contempt motions. Neither contempt motion reques…
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 For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Appellant husband appeals two orders which restrict his visitation with his minor son by requiring that such visitation may not take place in the presence of members of the opposite sex, or in the presence of Donna Frier in particular. We reverse.
Both orders were entered in response to motions for contempt, one of which was filed by the wife and the other by the husband. The wife’s motion made no mention of visitation whatsoever, and the husband’s motion merely asked for alternating weekend visitation. Neither motion requested any alteration of visitation of the nature ordered by the court.
Absent appropriate pleadings the court did not have jurisdiction to alter or modify the visitation provisions of the final judgment. Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Davis v. Davis, 335 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Even if the matter was raised at any of the hearings on the motions for contempt, an oral motion or request for alteration or modification of visitation does not satisfy the requirement that appropriate pleadings be filed prior to any modification of visitation. Sardinas v. Sardinas; Purvis v. Carver, 303 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Lourcey v. Lourcey, 256 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Accordingly, the lower court’s orders on the motions for contempt are reversed in so far as they restrict the husband’s visitation with his minor son by directing that such visits not take place in the presence of members of the opposite sex, in general, or in the presence of Donna Frier in particular. In all other respects, the two orders are affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeburg v. Freeburg, 596 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…court, the father’s challenge to them is groundless. The apparent gravamen of the father’s complaint before us is that he was denied due process because no pleadings leading to the loss of his visitation rights had been filed. See Cenate v. Cenate, 528 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We reject that argument, however, on the ground that the father specifically requested a hearing, albeit in a letter which the trial court apparently treated as a motion…
-
Heier v. Heier, 662 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ustody. A permanent change of custody could only be ordered after proper pleadings have been filed and the opposing party duly noticed of the relief being sought. See Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Brago; Cenate v. Cenate, 528 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). With this caveat, the order on appeal is otherwise affirmed in all respects. WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. McDONALD, 640 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
Authorities Cited
- Elida Pauline Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Purvis v. Carver, 303 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lourcey v. Lourcey, 256 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- DiCAPRIO v. Polk, 335 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)