RICHARD MICHAEL NOTARIANNI, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANNETTE F. NOTARIANNI, 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 held that the trial court erred in imposing open-ended medical expense obligations and modifying a final judgment without a proper petition, but did not err in its alimony modification decisions.
An ex-husband appealed a dissolution judgment, challenging several rulings by the trial court regarding medical expenses, real estate taxes, and alimo…
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 Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The ex-husband in this dissolution matter has appealed the trial court’s action on several grounds. We agree with each of the ex-husband’s contentions except two.
We agree that the trial court erred in ordering him to be responsible for medical insurance for medical expenses incurred by the wife from the date of the final judgment. It is error to impose such an open-ended obligation. See Gay v. Gay, 573 So. 2d 180, 180-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We also agree that it was error to order the ex-husband to be responsible for uninsured medical expenses incurred since the time of the final judgment. Id. It was error to modify the final judgment simply upon the wife’s motion for contempt without a pending petition for modification. Indeed, modification had not even been requested until the filing of the wife’s written petition submitted after the hearing. See Loss v. Loss, 608 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Finally, the trial court erred in failing to act upon the ex-husband’s request concerning his payment of real estate taxes and insurance to protect the former marital home prior to its sale.
The ex-husband’s assertion that the trial court erred in reducing alimony from $900 to only $600 is meritless. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Also, we do not agree that the trial court was mistaken in failing to establish a date of the modification, i.e., reduction, of alimony owed by the ex-husband as of the date of his petition requesting that relief. The effective date of the modification was within the court’s discretion. See Brisco v. Brisco, 355 So. 2d 506, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FRANK, C.J., and DANAHY and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ksaibati v. Ahmad Ghassan Ksaibati, 824 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…uirements imposed in the order were, in fact, modifications of the final judgment. Because neither party filed a proper pleading for a modification, the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the final judgment. See Notarianni v. Notarianni, 622 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“It was error to modify the final judgment simply upon the wife’s motion for contempt without a pending petition for modification.”); see also Brady v. Jones, 491 So. 2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“As the order adjudica…
-
State v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…w dismissed, 624 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1993). Due process requires that such a modification occur only after the filing of a motion seeking modification and notice to the other party. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Notarianni v. Notarianni, 622 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Burgess v. Burgess, 568 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we reverse the order. On remand the trial court is directed to reinstate the support obligations due under the Ohio or…
-
Torres v. Torres, 739 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…for the trial court to modify his duty to support her under these circumstances. We agree. It is settled that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation absent a pleading or motion requesting such modification. Notarianni v. Notarianni, 622 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Burgess v. Burgess, 568 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Raybuck v. Raybuck, 451 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A final judgment of dissolution, such as has been present in the circumstances of this case since 1992, establishes the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Brisco v. Brisco, 355 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- GAY v. GAY, 573 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Mahler v. Mahler, 608 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Loss v. Loss, 608 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)