MARLENE B. HENDERSHOT, APPELLANT,
v.
JASON HENDERSHOT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*445] PER CURIAM.
Marlene Hendershot appeals a final order that modified the child custody provisions of her dissolution judgment to give her former husband primary residential custody of their son. The order was entered at a hearing that was noticed for the former husband’s motion for contempt. His motion did not seek a change in residence.
We reverse the order because the trial court could not determine matters not noticed for hearing or award relief not sought by the pleadings. See McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We reject the argument that sufficient notice was provided by the trial court’s written warning to the appellant in a 1997 order that she could lose residential custody if she continued to deny visitation. That two-year-old warning was insufficient to put the appellant on notice that a change of custody might occur as a result of this hearing. See Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
REVERSED.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosenia Williams v. Primerano, 973 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). A trial court cannot determine matters not noticed for hearing or award relief not sought by the pleadings. Hendershot v. Hendershot, 742 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Maras v. Still, 927 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). With respect to child custody matters, “the trial court commit[s] reversible error in changing primary residence, even on a temporary basis, at a hearing that was not…
-
Vanda Fromvald v. Fullerton, 760 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…state — we would necessarily reverse because the only issue designated for trial was the conduct of Xose. An issue determined in spite of prior notice that it will not be considered is a denial of elemental due process. See Hendershot v. Hendershot, 742 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (explaining that a court can determine only those issues noticed for hearing and award only the relief sought by the pleadings). Vanda and her counsel were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court c…
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- McDONALD v. McDONALD, 732 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)