PAMELA D. WILKINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD W. WILKINSON, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Former wife Pamela Wilkinson appealed a final judgment modifying child support obligations following her divorce. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part but reversed the child support modification for minor child Blake, finding the former husband failed to properly plead for such support, thereby depriving the former wife of due process.
While a court has inherent authority to modify child support, the trial court erred in modifying child support relating to Blake without a specific pleading by the former husband. The modification violated the former wife's due process rights because she was not afforded adequate notice of the request through proper pleading.
[1] A court may not modify child support without a specific pleading requesting such modification.
[2] A party is deprived of due process when a court modifies child support without a specific pleading, even if the court has inherent authority to modify child support.
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 intelligence“Clearly, a court has an inherent authority to modify child support.”
Establishes the general legal principle that courts may modify child support, but does not eliminate procedural due process requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe marriage was dissolved by final judgment on November 18, 1991, incorporating a separation, custody and property settlement agreement. The former h…
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 Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The former wife has filed this appeal from a “Final Judgment” based on the former husband’s October 29, 1993 supplemental complaint for modification and the former husband’s amended supplemental complaint for modification dated November 4, 1994. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a final judgment of dissolution on November 18, 1991. This final judgment incorporated a separation, custody and property settlement agreement.
The former wife has raised numerous issues dealing with child support, rehabilitative alimony and property settlement. After a thorough review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find that one issue has merit.
The final judgment indicated that the former wife was to pay the former husband $6,959.29 based upon a monthly child support payment of $148.07 from April 1995 through February 1999 since the former husband had been the primary residential parent of the minor child, Blake, during that period. In addition, the former wife was ordered to continue paying child support for Blake in the amount of $148.07 per month. The former wife contends that the former husband never pleaded or affirmatively requested such child support. The record indicates that the husband was designated in 1996 as primary custodian of Blake but no pleadings were filed requesting child support from the wife.
Clearly, a court has an inherent authority to modify child support. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Morley, 570 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The issue here, however, is one of due process as noted by this court in Peterson v. Mathies, 687 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(father deprived of due process when at hearing on contempt motion, court decided to modify child support). The record supports the wife in this regard. Thus, the lower court erred in modifying child support relating to Blake without a specific pleading by the husband.
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed in all respects with the exception of the child support modification relating to the minor child, Blake.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
ANTOON, C. J. and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 948 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…n raised in his written closing argument. Therefore, we find this argument to have been waived. Carlton v. Carlton, 816 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (issue waived where not raised until hearing on motion to rehear). See also Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 756 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(without specific pleading for relief by husband, award deprived wife of due process). The former husband next claims it was error for the trial court to have reinstitut-ed his original child support obligation retroactive to the…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Morley, 570 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Icon Dev. Corp. v. Winkelman, 687 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Peterson v. Mathies, 687 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)