STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF CHRISTINE SCREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM SCREWS, 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 reversed a trial court's order that reduced public assistance arrearages owed by a father. The court held that the Department of Revenue was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before any modification of the support order.
Yes, the Department was entitled to at least sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court could consider modification of the amount the appellee was required to pay in public assistance benefits.
[1] A court cannot modify a support decree unless the issue of modification is presented in appropriate proceedings and each party is afforded an opportunity to be heard.
[2] A party seeking modification of a support order must file a pleading requesting such relief.
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 court cannot modify a support decree, or any other decree, unless the issue of modification is presented in appropriate proceedings and each party is afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue.”
Establishes the requirement for notice and hearing before modification of a decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court reduced the amount of public assistance arrearages owed by the appellee/father. The appellant, the Florida Department of Health and Re…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), appeals the trial court order reducing the amount of public assistance ar-rearages owed by appellee/father, William Screws, to the Department. We agree with the Department that they were at least entitled to sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court could consider modification of the amount appellee was required to pay in public assistance benefits. A court cannot modify a support decree, or any other decree, unless the issue of modification is presented in appropriate proceedings and each party is afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue. See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Manning v. Varges, 413 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellee, in the instant case, never filed any pleading requesting relief or modification of the amount he was previously ordered to pay for public assistance reimbursement, and the Department never received any notice that the previous support order might be modified.
Moreover, by accepting public assistance from the Department for the support of dependent children, the Department acquires the authority to proceed with all remedies available to the child’s custodian. See Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1982); Parmer v. Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The law is well established that the right to payments in the nature of child support arrears or alimony is vested and not subject to reduction absent compelling equities in the party obligated to make the payments. Filaretou v. Filaretou, 652 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Guarino v. Guarino, 431 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA), pet. denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983).
Accordingly, we reverse the order reducing the arrearage amounts of public assistance benefits owed by appellee to the Department. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…vacate. This timely appeal followed. A court cannot modify a child support award unless the issue is presented by appropriate pleading, with sufficient notice and an opportunity for the nonmoving party to be heard. Department of Revenue v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Department of Revenue v. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Notice of a contempt proceeding does not provide sufficient notice that a court may modify a previously imposed child support obligation. Kiedaisch, 670 So.…
-
Deena Dykes v. Dykes, 712 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…r modification. See Brisco v. Brisco, 355 So. 2d 506, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Steinau v. Steinau, 343 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accord Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 205 (1938); State, Department of [*1194] Revenue v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Burdick v. Burdick, 601 So. 2d 632, 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(reversible error to discharge support arrearages which accumulated prior to filing of petition for modification). In this case, the order of modification states in…
-
State v. Padgett, 704 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…atson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(holding it is well settled that “[w]hen a party has no notice of a trial date, the trial court abuses its discretion when it proceeds with a final hearing.”) (citation omitted); DOR v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that modification of previous support order and arrearage without giving HRS notice and opportunity to be heard, where HRS provides support to dependant children, constitutes reversible error). Thus, the trial court’s…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1982)
- Manning v. Varges, 413 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Guarino v. Guarino, 431 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Charity Parmer v. Stevie Alan Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- In re the Marriage of Filaretos Filaretou v. Jesusa Filaretou, 652 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)