THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,

v.

FRANK ROUBLICK, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Byers v. Callahan, 848 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
  …and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)); see also Lamelas v. Granados, 730 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent, they are treated as if they had been raised by the pleadings. Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.190; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b); Buday v. Ayer, 754 So. 2d…
• Flemming v. Flemming, 742 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
  …primary residential parent “subject to rotating custody with the Husband on an alternating week basis.” The trial court did not have authority to rule on matters that were “not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” Lamelas v. Granados, 730 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). The issue of rotating custody was not tried by implied consent because Former Wife raised a proper objection. See Todaro, 704 So. 2d at 140 (citing Hemraj v. Hemraj, 6…
• Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …43, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Florida courts have consistently held that “[it] is fundamental that a trial court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” Lamelas v. Granados, 730 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Courts have reasoned that a party’s due process rights are violated when a party is not given notice that the trial court would consider an issue or opportunity to be heard on the matter. See Moore, 16 So. 3d at 224. [*315]…

Authorities Cited

• Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)