STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND DONNA KAYE PADGETT SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM THOMAS PADGETT, 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 and a former wife appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to set aside a support modification order that divided debt between the parties without notice to them. The appellate court held that proceeding with a final hearing affecting a party's substantial rights without proper notice constitutes an abuse of discretion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the previously entered support modification order because the order affected the substantial rights of the Appellants, and they were not given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the hearing. Therefore, the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment must be reversed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to set aside an order that affects a party's substantial rights without providing that party notice and an opp…
[2] An order entered without notice to an interested party concerning a hearing thereon may be considered void.
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“the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to set aside the previously entered support modification order because the prior order affected the substantial rights of Appellant, absent notice and an opportunity to be heard”
States the court's holding on the core legal issue—that due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard when a trial court issues an order affecting a party's substantial rights.
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 entered a support modification order that divided a debt owed to the Appellants between the former wife and the former husband/appelle…
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 Motion To Set Aside Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to set aside a previously entered support modification order. The trial court’s prior order, inter alia, divided a debt owed to Appellant between Former Wife and Former Husband/Appellee, while Former Wife was still receiving AFDC benefits because of Former Husband’s failure to pay child support. However, Appellant was not notified of the hearing and learned of the trial court’s order only after its issuance.
Appellant argues on appeal that the prior order should be set aside because Appellant was not given notice before the hearing thereon.
We hold that under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to set aside the previously entered support modification order because the prior order affected the substantial rights of Appellant, absent notice and an opportunity to be heard. Ram Coating Tech. Corp. v. Courtaulds Coatings, Inc., 625 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(holding that judgment entered absent notice to interested party concerning hearing thereon renders judgment void); Watson 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 order denying Appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new support modification hearing,
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cintron v. State, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Watson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- RAM Coating Tech. Corp. v. Courtaulds Coatings, Inc., 625 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- State v. Screws, 688 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)