CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTORIA B. ROGERS, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the court reversed the final judgment because the trial court awarded the wife the entire equity in the marital home, even though the wife's petition for dissolution only requested either exclusive use and possession for the husband until a certain date with a $15,000 payment to her, or alternatively, equal division of sale proceeds. The court held that a defaulting party can only be bound by the specific relief requested in the pleading.
The court held that a defaulting party can only be said to have admitted the well-pleaded facts and acquiesced in the relief specifically prayed for in the petition. Because the wife did not request the entire equity in the marital residence in her petition, the trial court erred in awarding that relief.
[1] A party against whom a default is entered is only deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded facts and acquiesced in the relief specifically prayed for in the petition.
[2] A trial court errs by granting relief not sought in the petition for dissolution of marriage, even when a default has been entered against the responding party.
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“A party against whom a default is entered can only be said to have admitted the well-pleaded facts, and to have acquiesced in the relief specifically prayed for.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that a defaulting party's liability is limited to the specific relief requested in the pleading.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the husband failed to file a responsive pleading, resulting in a default being entered again…
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 Well-Pleaded Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Christopher Allen Rogers, the husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We must reverse because the final judgment granted relief which was not sought by the wife, Victoria B. Rogers, in her petition for dissolution of marriage.
The wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and the husband failed to file a responsive pleading. Thereafter, a default was entered against the husband. In the petition for dissolution of marriage, the wife asked that the equity in the marital home be distributed as follows:
The Wife is requesting that the Husband be granted exclusive use and possession of the marital residence until January 1, 2004. The Wife is requesting that the Husband pay directly to her the sum of $15,000 as her share of the equity in the marital residence or in the alternative that the Husband vacate the marital residence on January 1, 2004 and the residence be placed on the market by the Wife with each party equally dividing the proceeds from the sale of the home.
Thereafter, the final judgment awarded the entire equity in the marital residence to the wife.
In Longo v. Longo, 576 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), this court held, “A party against whom a default is entered can only be said to have admitted the well-pleaded facts, and to have acquiesced in the relief specifically prayed for.” See Ruble v. Ruble, 884 So. 2d 150, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that trial court erred in refusing to. set aside final judgment awarding permanent custody where husband did not request permanent custody in his petition), review denied, 895 So. 2d 406 (Fla.2005); Perez v. Perez, 519 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (concluding that the award of husband’s interest in the marital residence to the wife was not supported by any such request in the petition). Here, the trial court improperly awarded the equity in the marital residence to the wife, where she did not request such in her petition.
Accordingly, we reverse this case and remand it for the trial court to reconsider the distribution of marital assets requested by the wife in her petition for dissolution of marriage.1 In considering such matters, the trial court may take further testimony.
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. . The default has not been set aside.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luca Baricchi v. Loraine Barry, 137 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…814-15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). Operationally, without service of the amended petition, that is what transpired in this instance. Ms. Barry was afforded a strategic advantage to which she was not entitled. This court has addressed, in Rogers v. Rogers, 905 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), a property award without a prior, triggering pleading allegation or prayer for relief requesting it. There the wife’s petition requested that the husband be granted exclusive use and possession of the marital residence until a ce…
Authorities Cited
- Gaetano Longo v. Longo, 576 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Perez v. Perez, 519 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Delana Ruble v. Ruble, 884 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Pettway v. State, 895 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2005)