RICHARD WAYNE JOSEPH, APPELLANT,
v.
MELISSA WHITLEY JOSEPH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction To Modify Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM,
The trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition for modification of alimony. The trial judge had jurisdiction to consider the petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellant Procedure 9.600(c). Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Merlan v. Merhige, 690 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).1 See also Davies v. Davies, 833 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (Browning, J., concurring).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur; and WOLF, C.J., concurs in result.
. Appellee’s reliance on Campbell v. Campbell, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), is misplaced. Although the majority in Campbell set aside the order of modification for lack of jurisdiction, it was also noted that "once jurisdiction is revested in the trial court, it may enter an order on the petition for modification retroactive to the date on which it was filed, if it is of the continued opinion that changed circumstances warrant that relief.” 436 So. 2d at 377. The motion in Campbell was not dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Joseph, 908 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…the trial court was not jurisdictionally barred from considering the petition to modify under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c) and, thus, had erred in dismissing it, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Joseph v. Joseph, 881 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The parties rightfully concede on appeal that Case No. 1D03-1510 controls the instant proceedings. We had not issued our decision, id., when the trial court issued the dismissal order now challenged by the former husband. Becaus…
-
Horowitz v. Horowitz, 139 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…he former husband responded that his petition seeks to modify the support awards prospectively; and, therefore, the modification proceedings will not interfere with the subject matter of the pending appeal. For support, he cites to Joseph v. Joseph, 881 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Analysis Harmonizing the cases, we conclude that the trial court may consider the modification petition incident to its jurisdiction under Rule 9.600(c); however, it may…
Authorities Cited
- Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Richway, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Merian v. Merhige, 690 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Davies v. Davies, 833 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)