ALAN HERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN HERMAN, 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 this divorce modification case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order awarding the former wife 50% of the husband's civil service retirement benefits because the wife filed no proper written pleading for modification and the husband received no adequate notice of the modification hearing, violating due process rights.
The trial court erred in entertaining the wife's oral motion for modification without a proper written pleading and adequate notice to the husband. Fundamental due process requires a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties. The order is reversed and remanded to allow the wife to file a proper petition for modification.
[1] A party seeking modification of a prior court order must file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned to satisfy due process requiremen…
[2] A notice of hearing that does not inform a party of the intent to seek modification of a prior order is insufficient to satisfy due process.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Fundamental concepts of due process require a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned.”
Establishes the core procedural requirement violated by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlan and Marilyn Herman were divorced in 1989 after a 33-year marriage. The amended final judgment awarded the husband all of his civil service retire…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alan Herman appeals an order modifying the amended final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. For the following reason, we reverse and remand.
Alan Herman [husband] and Marilyn Herman [wife] were divorced in 1989 following a thirty-three-year marriage. The amended final judgment of dissolution awarded the wife’s interest in the husband’s civil service retirement annuity to the husband. The wife filed two motions for rehearing, both of which were denied. Subsequently, the wife appeared before the trial court ex parte and moved to modify that portion of the amended final judgment awarding the husband all of his retirement annuity benefits. Neither the husband nor his attorney was present at the “hearing” on the wife’s ore tenus motion for modification. At the hearing on March 1, 1990, the wife argued that she was entitled to modification of the final judgment because the husband was about to retire and civil service law precludes former spouses from receiving retirement benefits unless a court awards those benefits to the former spouse before retirement. After a telephone hearing with counsel for both sides, the trial court granted the wife’s motion and entered an order awarding her fifty percent of the husband’s retirement benefits.
The trial court erred in entertaining the wife’s ore tenus motion for modification. Fundamental concepts of due process require a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned. Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957) (error to modify support decree unless issue of modification presented by pleadings); Layne v. Layne, 478 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same). In this case, the wife filed no pleading. Her “Notice of Hearing [ — ] Special Setting” filed on February 26,1990, was not sufficient to inform the husband of her intent to seek modification. See Bell v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 487 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (where only notice of modification hearing was that hearing would be held on order of continuance, trial court abridged father’s due process rights by ruling on issue of modification).
We recognize that the wife may have a colorable claim regarding the imminency of the husband’s retirement and the effect this may have on her right to share in his retirement benefits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand without prejudice for Mrs. Herman to file a proper petition for modification.1
Reversed and remanded.
. Because we reverse on the ground that proper pleadings were not filed, we do not reach the remaining points on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…d support obligation. Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that an award of relief not sought by the pleadings is error; court’s jurisdiction can be exercised only within the scope of the pleadings); Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that “[f]undamental concepts of due process require a party seeking modification of a prior court order to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned”). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR REC…
-
In re Est. OF Paula X. Assimakopoulos v. Nicolle Assimakopoulos-Panuthos, 228 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ion not noticed for hearing, but it had not even been made before the hearing. Entry of judgment bn a motion never made, never served upon the opposing party, and never noticed for hearing .patently violates due process. See, e.g., Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“Fundamental concepts of due process require a party seeking [affirmative relief] to file a written pleading and provide appropriate notice to all parties concerned.”); Clearvalle, Inc. v. Cohen, 561 So. 2d 1354, 1354 (Fla.…
-
Operation Rescue Nat'l v. City OF Orlando, 712 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…tion, he regranted an injunction as though the matter was before him for the first time, all without notice that an amendment to the injunction would be considered or that an original hearing on the petition would be conducted. See Herman v. Herman, 565 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (fundamental concepts of due process should have precluded trial court from entertaining wife’s ore tenus motion for modification of final judgment of dissolution; wife had filed no pleading). [*451] Thus, there is a question as t…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bell v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 487 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Layne v. Layne, 478 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)