STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF CARLA M. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID L. CARTER, 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 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court order that reduced a father's child support obligation without notice or a petition for modification. The court reversed, holding that due process requires modification of child support to occur only after filing a motion seeking modification and providing notice to the other party.
A Florida court may modify child support from a foreign registered judgment, but due process requires that modification occur only after filing a motion seeking modification and providing notice to the other party. The trial court's unilateral reduction without these procedural safeguards was reversible error.
[1] A court cannot modify a child support order without a petition for modification and notice to the other party.
[2] A Florida court may modify a child support order from a foreign judgment registered under section 88.371, Florida Statutes.
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“A Florida court can modify child support awarded by a foreign judgment registered under section 88.371 [...] Due process requires that such a modification occur only after the filing of a motion seeking modification and notice to the other party.”
States the core legal holding that procedural safeguards are mandatory for child support modification
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1991, an Ohio court ordered David L. Carter to pay $65.32 per week in child support. Carter failed to pay and did not seek modification. The…
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 Registration Of Foreign Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on behalf of the mother, Carla M. Carter, appeals an order reducing the child support obligation of the father, David L. Carter. We reverse the order because it was entered without notice or a petition for modification.
In August 1991, an Ohio court entered a judgment requiring Mr. Carter to pay $65.32 per week in child support. He did not pay this support, and took no steps to modify the obligation. The mother registered the Ohio judgment in Florida pursuant to section 88.371, Florida Statutes (1993). She then filed a motion for contempt to enforce the judgment.
The father appeared without counsel at the hearing on the mother’s motion for contempt. After listening to the father’s explanation, the trial court entered an order on the motion for contempt finding that the father owed $5373.34 in back support, and ordering the father to pay $20.00 per month toward that support arrears. Without notice or any petition to modify child support, the trial court reduced the father’s future child support obligation to $80.00 per month. The mother objected to this reduction because the father had not petitioned for modification.
A Florida court can modify child support awarded by a foreign judgment registered under section 88.371.1 Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 518 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1988); see also, State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Davis, 616 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA), review 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 order and recalculate the arrearage to include this amount.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . Whether the trial court should use this power to reduce child support for a child living in Ohio to an amount established by the Florida child support guidelines need not be resolved in this case. The trial court's decision was strongly influenced by the Florida guidelines. It would seem prudent for the trial court to consider the support normally awarded to similarly situated Ohio children under Ohio law. Although this is a part IV enforcement proceeding under chapter 88, it is noteworthy that a reduction in child support in a chapter 88, part III proceeding does not eliminate the foreign support obligation. See State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Franklin, 630 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…hild support obligation. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d at 1059 (notice of contempt motion seeking child support arrearage did not constitute notice that the court might modify child support order); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing trial court’s order reducing future child support obligation when the only issue before the [*473] court was appellant’s contempt motion to enforce domesticated child support order). This court has held that a suspensi…
-
State v. Daumier Collins, 727 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…d that a trial court cannot enter judgment on a matter that is not litigated by the parties based on pleadings made prior to the hearing. See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla.1957); State Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In this case, there were no pleadings requesting modification of child support. Furthermore, the trial court incorrectly treated statements made by Arnold as an oral motion for modification of support by Collins. There are n…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Cascella, 751 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ned personal jurisdiction over the persons seeking enforcement of the out-of-state judgment and provided due process, it could not constitutionally modify the original decree. State, Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services on Behalf of Carter v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus under state law, we conclude that should the Department seek to enforce Louis’ child support obligation in this UIFSA proceeding, it may do so based on the Connecticut decree. The URESA proceeding in Florida did not modify…
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)
- State v. Franklin, 630 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Notarianni v. Notarianni, 622 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. Davis, 616 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Pettigrew v. Ellis D. Pettigrew, 518 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Fellows Corp. v. Variance, 568 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Burgess v. Burgess, 568 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)