JUDY CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, 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.
Judy Clark appealed a final judgment modifying custody and child support in favor of her former husband Christopher Clark. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly awarded 50/50 responsibility for uncovered medical, dental, optical, orthodontic and prescription expenses because the former husband's petition adequately put Clark on notice of the requested modification.
The court held that the trial court properly modified the child support obligation because the former husband's petition for modification, which requested that both parties pay child support in accordance with the Florida Child Support Guidelines, was sufficient to put the former wife on notice that such medical and dental expenses would be addressed, and these expenses constitute part of child support under Florida law.
[1] A trial court may modify a child support obligation only if a pleading or motion requests such modification.
[2] A petition for modification of custody that seeks child support in accordance with state guidelines is sufficient to put the opposing party on notice of potential child s…
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 settled that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation absent a pleading or motion requesting such modification.”
Establishes the foundational rule requiring proper pleading notice for child support modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a family law case involving child custody and support modification, the former husband (Christopher Clark) filed a petition seeking primary residen…
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 Florida Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
Clark appeals the final judgment on the petition to modify custody which gave primary custody to the former husband. We affirm, addressing only the issue of the child support award.
In the final judgment, the trial court modified the child support award declaring that “[t]he Father and Mother will be responsible 50/50 for all reasonable and necessary medical, dental, optical, orthodontic and prescription expenses not covered by any insurances.” Clark argues that this award was improper because such relief was not requested by the former husband in the pleading. We disagree.
It is settled that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation absent a pleading or motion requesting such modification. Torres v. Torres, 739 So. 2d 599, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) The former husband’s petition for modification sought primary residential responsibility, abatement of his child support obligation, and a requirement “that both parties should pay child support in accordance with the Florida Child Support Guidelines”. This pleading was sufficient to put Clark on notice. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 712 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that the pleading function of a petition for modification is to reasonably inform the other side of what is to be established in support of the petition, so that the opponent has a fair opportunity to defend and prepare a case).
Medical, dental, optical, orthodontic, and prescription expenses fall within the category of child support. Section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes, discusses the provision of non-covered medical, dental and prescription expenses as being part of the basic obligation unless “these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.” Thus, those expenses are contemplated as being child support under the guidelines. The cases relied on by the former wife are not applicable as in each of them, either no request was made for child support in the pleading or the basis for child support was not properly pled. See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Owens v. Eshelman, 712 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
As to all other issues, finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm.
GROSS, J. and STERN, KENNETH, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Judkins v. State, 84 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…coverage ... and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, shall be added to the basic obligation unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis.” See also Clark v. Clark, 837 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the lower tribunal to provide for an award of the child’s future uncovered medical expenses in accordance with the father’s percentage share of child support. In addition, the Depar…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Torres v. Torres, 739 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Owens v. Myrtis M. Eshelman, 712 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 712 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)