STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF LATOSHA ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
DAUMIER COLLINS, 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 appeals a trial court's order terminating child support and requiring the custodial mother to repay arrearages owed by the non-custodial father. The court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly considered child support modification at a contempt hearing without proper pleadings or notice, and lacked authority to order a custodial parent to repay arrearages.
No. The trial court improperly considered modification of child support without proper pleadings or notice, incorrectly treated Arnold's statements as Collins's oral motion for modification, and lacked authority to order a custodial parent to repay arrearages owed by the non-custodial parent.
[1] A trial court cannot enter judgment on a matter that is not litigated by the parties based on pleadings made prior to the hearing.
[2] A trial court cannot modify child support obligations at a hearing for contempt absent a motion for modification.
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“It is well-settled 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.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural requirement that modifications must be properly pleaded and noticed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, a trial court found Collins was the father of Arnold's child and ordered him to pay $33 per week in child support plus $7 per week toward a $…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Chief Judge.
The Department of Revenue (DOR), on behalf of Latosha Arnold, appeals the trial court’s order terminating child support and ordering Arnold to pay the arrearages owed by Daumier Collins, the natural father. Because the trial court improperly considered matters not pleaded or noticed during the hearing on a contempt charge against Collins, we reverse.
In 1995, the trial court entered a final judgment of paternity, finding that Collins was the legal and natural father of a child whose natural mother was Arnold. The trial court ordered Collins to pay $33 per week in child support and an additional $7 per week toward an arrearage of $1988. The trial court ordered the payments to continue “until the children) reaches the age of majority, (unless the child(ren) are/is under the age of nineteen and still in high school with reasonable expectation of graduation, before the age of nineteen), marries, becomes self-supporting or until further order of the court.”
In 1998, the DOR filed a motion for contempt and notice of hearing, alleging that Collins owed an arrearage of $5,841.92 for public assistance paid to support the minor child. At the hearing on the contempt charge, the DOR explained that Arnold and Collins had begun cohabitating and that Arnold wanted the support order terminated. Arnold confirmed this information and also volunteered to repay the arrearage owed by Collins.
Thereafter, the trial court entered an order terminating child support, finding that Collins had made an oral motion for termination of child support. The trial.court also ordered Arnold to repay the arrearage of $1988. The DOR filed a motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the DOR asserts that the trial court erred by considering modification of child support without notice and by ordering a custodial parent to repay an arrearage. We agree and reverse.
We conclude that the trial court improperly considered modification of child support at the hearing on contempt. It is well-settled 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 no statements by Arnold or Collins in the record that suggest the intention to make a motion for modification. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating child support.
Similarly, the trial court improperly considered modification of the arrearage owed by Collins at the contempt hearing. See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Ward, 560 So. 2d 1381, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (absent a motion for modification, a trial court cannot modify the manner of repayment of an arrearage at a hearing for contempt). Moreover, the DOR is correct that a trial court cannot order a custodial parent to repay an arrearage owed. See State Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. D’Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Sapp v. Daniels, 520 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vandy E. Paulk v. Paulk, 25 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…that time, we must reverse. “A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter any judgment on an issue not raised by the pleadings.” Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749, 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also State, Dep’t. of Revenue ex rel. Arnold v. Collins, 727 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Brady v. Jones, 491 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The record indicates that the Mother’s counsel objected to the Father’s petition [*675] for modification being heard and that the issues raised in that petition were not tried…
-
Dep't OF Revenue & Anna M. Hill v. Young, 68 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…enter a superseding order prospectively eliminating appellee’s child support obligation where such an issue was not presented by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties. See State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Arnold v. Collins, 727 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Moody v. Moody, 721 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lourcey v. Lourcey, 256 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Although the circuit court found it inequita…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue & Bobbie S. Weaver v. Fredeking, 68 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…not enter a superseding order prospectively reducing appellee’s child support obligation where such an issue was not presented by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties. See State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Arnold v. Collins, 727 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Moody v. Moody, 721 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hammond v. Hammond, 492 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lourcey v. Lourcey, 256 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Although the circuit court found it inequita…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Wanda Y. Sapp & the State of Fla. v. Daniels, 520 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. D'Andrea, 542 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Carter, 654 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Ward, 560 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)