PAUL MCDONALD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL MCDONALD, N/K/A CHERYL CRANMER, 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 court held that awarding sole parental responsibility for a child's education was reversible error when the petition did not request such relief.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by awarding relief not sought in the pleadings.
[2] A trial court's award of sole parental responsibility concerning a child's education is reversible error when such relief was not requested in the petition.
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 intelligenceFollowing a divorce, the former wife petitioned for relocation with the parties' child. The trial court granted the relocation and awarded the former …
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 Sole Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
BAKER, MOSES, Jr., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Paul McDonald, appeals a final order granting his former wife Cheryl McDonald, n/k/a Cheryl Cranmer’s petition for relocation with the parties’ exceptional minor child, Streisand McDonald.
The parties were divorced pursuant to a final judgment dated March 14,1997. The wife petitioned for relocation on May 19, 1997, just sixty-five days later. The order granting the petition provided the following, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties shall continue to share parental responsibilities except to the discretion regarding Streisand’s education, which is for the Petitioner/Former Wife to decide;” (emphasis added).
We find that the trial court’s award of sole parental responsibility concerning the education of the minor child constitutes reversible error because appellee did not pray for this relief in her petition. It is well settled that when an award of relief is not sought by the pleadings, it is reversible error to grant such relief. See Moore v. Trevino, 612 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (the trial court’s award of shared parental responsibility constituted reversible error, where appellee did not pray for custody in his counter petition); Wallace v. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (because the wife’s motion did not request the relief awarded, and she submitted no evidence on the issue, it was error to award such relief); Rhodes v. Wall, 514 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (reversible error occurred where petition for paternity did not ask for custody, but court awarded shared parental responsibility); Gleason v. Gleason, 453 So. 2d 941, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (“[i]n this dissolution of marriage action, the court awarded to the husband the wife’s interest in a jointly owned money market account. The husband had not sought such relief. Accordingly, we reverse-”).
After careful consideration, we affirm as to all other issues raised on appeal by appellant. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and notice.” In re Estate of Hatcher, 439 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(footnote omitted); see also McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(holding that “when an award of relief is not sought by the pleadings, it is reversible error to grant such relief”); Instituto Patriotico Y Docente San Carlos, Inc. v. Cuban American Nat’l Found., 667 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 3…
-
Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…aside. We agree with the former husband that a court cannot award relief that was not requested in the pleadings. See Hines v. Hines, 494 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hernandez v. Hernandez, 444 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). However, the former wife’s rule 1.540 motion was not a “pleading.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110. The only relevant pleading is the former wife’s counterpetition for dissolution of marriage, which she filed in 1994. In her counter-p…
-
Roque v. Paskow, 812 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…hat the court merely clarified and interpreted the provisions of the original final judgment. In order for the trial court to modify a final judgment, the moving party must present the issue by appropriate pleadings. See McDonald v. [*503] McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Moody v. Moody, 721 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). To obtain modification, a party must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances necessitating the modification together with a determination that the best inte…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. Cezar Trevino, 612 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Wallace v. Susanne M. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Gleason v. Gleason, 453 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Rhodes v. Wall, 514 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)