STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF REBECCA GEIGER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN LEONARDI, 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 Revenue appealed a trial court's order suspending a father's child support obligation, which was entered without proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The appellate court reversed, holding that modification of child support requires appropriate pleading, notice, and an opportunity for the non-moving party to be heard, which did not occur in a contempt proceeding.
A court cannot modify a child support award, including suspending ongoing child support obligations, unless the issue is presented by appropriate pleading with sufficient notice and an opportunity for the non-moving party to be heard. A contempt notice does not provide sufficient notice that the court may modify a previously imposed child support obligation.
[1] 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 b…
[2] Notice of a contempt proceeding seeking child support arrearages does not provide sufficient notice that a court may modify a previously imposed child support obligation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 child support award unless the issue is presented by appropriate pleading, with sufficient notice and an opportunity for the nonmoving party to be heard.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural requirement for any modification of child support obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 1991, Rebecca Geiger filed a paternity and child support complaint against John Leonardi. The trial court ordered Leonardi to pay $231.88 mont…
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
The State Department of Revenue (the department) appeals the trial court’s order sua sponte suspending appellee’s child support obligation and reserving jurisdiction over the issue of appellee’s arrearage obligation. We reverse because the trial court’s order is a modification of child support which was entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
In July 1991 Rebecca Geiger filed a complaint to determine paternity and establish child support. John Leonardi was determined to be the father of the minor child and was ordered to pay ongoing child support in the amount of $231.88 a month and $10.00 a month on arrearages. On February 26,1996, the department filed a motion for contempt against Leonardi alleging child support ar-rearages in excess of $11,000.00. Leonardi never filed a pleading seeking modification of his child support obligation, and the department never received a notice that the child support amount would be an issue at the contempt hearing. Nonetheless, the hearing officer, after determining Leonardi was not in wilful contempt, ordered the clerk to suspend child support as of the date of the hearing, April 15,1996.
After the trial court ratified the hearing officer’s findings, the department filed a motion to vacate arguing the issue of suspension of child support was not properly before the court. Although the trial court agreed, it denied the motion to 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. 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 court was appellant’s contempt motion to enforce domesticated child support order).
This court has held that a suspension of the requirement to pay ongoing child support constitutes a modification of a prior order. Parmer v. Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Leonardi did not file a pleading requesting modification of his ongoing child support obligation. Without such a pleading, the trial court was without authority to modify his obligation of support.
Accordingly, we reverse the order suspending Leonardos child support payments and reserving jurisdiction over the arrearage issue.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Najeeb Khan v. Dep't OF Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ufficient notice and an opportunity ior the nonmoving party to be heard. Notice of a contempt proceeding does not provide sufficient notice that a court may modify a previously imposed child support obligation.” [e.s.] Dep’t of Revenue v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472, 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see Dep’t of Revenue v. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (child support order could not be modified at hearing on mother’s motion for contempt as father did not give notice to mother that modification would be i…
-
McGRATH v. Caron, 8 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…. with sufficient notice and an opportunity for the nonmoving party to be heard. Notice of a contempt proceeding does not provide sufficient notice that a court may modify a previously imposed child support obligation.” Dep’t of Revenue v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472, 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citations omitted); see also Khan v. Dep’t of Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that proper notice is “an essential part of the concept of due process”); Dep’t of Revenue v. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.…
-
State v. Money, 706 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ting such action or notice and an opportunity to be heard; and (2) retroactively to reduce the amount of the arrearage absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances compelling such a result. We agree. See, e.g., State Dep’t of Revenue v. Leonardi, 696 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (court cannot modify child support award unless issue is presented by appropriate pleading, with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard); Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (absent extraordinary circumstances…
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
- State v. Kiedaisch, 670 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Charity Parmer v. Stevie Alan Parmer, 431 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)