LESLIE SENTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN SENTZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of relief from an amended child support order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify child support absent a proper pleading for modification.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify child support payments without a pleading seeking such modification, and any order modifying support entered without jurisdiction is void.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify child support obligations absent a pleading by the obligor seeking such modification, and any modification order entered withou…
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 intelligenceAppellee filed no pleading for modification of child support, yet the trial court entered an amended order dated November 21, 1988, modifying the chil…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540(B)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We reverse because the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) seeking relief from an amended order dated November 21, 1988, modifying child support payments.
We agree with appellant’s assertion that since appellee filed no pleading for a modification of child support, the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the child support payments. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957). Additionally, because the issue of the appellee’s child support obligation exceeded the scope of a contempt proceeding, the trial court violated appellant’s due process rights by modifying the appellee’s support obligation. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Since the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order modifying child support, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for relief from said order. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4). Furthermore, this cause is remanded with instructions to quash the amended order dated November 21, 1988, on the grounds that it is void.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barbara J. Anthony & the State of Fla. v. Snell, 630 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…filed and no notice was given to the appellants that modification was at issue. ' A motion for contempt does not provide a legal basis for the trial court to modify child support. Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Consequently, the order of modification is REVERSED. BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.…
-
Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…g on modification would be rendered. It has been held that a ruling on modification constitutes a jurisdictional defect where no pleading requested such modification. Leibowitz v. Leibowitz, 611 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citing Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (finding modification of child support exceeded scope of contempt proceeding and constituted deprivation of due process)); see also Anthony and State, Dept, of HRS v. Snell, 630 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (modification of chi…
-
State v. Colonel, 627 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…rt obligation in this proceeding. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Nolden, 556 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded. ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)