DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O CAROLE S. JOHNSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFF W. WHITING, 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 erred by reducing child support arrearages and modifying emancipation conditions without a proper request or pleadings.
Following a New York divorce decree incorporating a property settlement agreement, the parties moved to Florida. The father filed a petition to domest…
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 Emancipation Of Child cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The parties were divorced in New York in 1990. The final judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties which defined the terms of emancipation of the children in so far as visitation and support would apply. The mother and the children moved to Florida.
Later, the father also moved to Florida and filed a petition to domesticate the New York decree and to modify it by reducing the amount of monthly support. The wife, through the Department of Revenue, defended the action and also sought substantial arrearages.
The court, without any pleadings to do so, reduced the amount of arrearages. This was error. See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Newhall v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
The court, also without a request from either party, modified the conditions that would result in emancipation of the children. This also was error. See generally, Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1990).
We find the other contested rulings of the court to be within its Canakaris discretion and affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cortina v. Lorie, 95 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…pport arrears Mr. Evans owes because the trial court cannot modify this obligation absent a pleading and proof of compelling circumstances such as laches, estoppel, waiver, or other equitable reasons.”); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Johnston v. Whiting, 684 So. 2d 281, 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The court, without any pleadings to do so, reduced the amount of arrearages. This was error.”); Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs. ex rel. Newhall v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 1335, 1336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“We conclude that the t…
Authorities Cited
- Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)