ROBERT R. KOCH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH REDFERN KOCH, 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 this Florida alimony enforcement appeal, the court reversed the trial court's order securing alimony through the former marital home because the order modified the final divorce judgment without the former wife filing the required supplemental petition to modify, violating proper pleading requirements.
The trial court's order was fundamentally erroneous because it modified the final judgment without the former wife having filed the required supplemental petition to modify. The order must therefore be reversed.
[1] A trial court cannot modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage without the filing of an appropriate pleading, such as a supplemental petition to modify.
[2] An order that modifies a final judgment without proper pleadings is fundamentally erroneous on its face and subject to reversal.
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“In order for the trial court to modify a final judgment, the moving party must present the issue by appropriate pleadings.”
Establishes the legal requirement that proper pleading is necessary for any modification of a final judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved in July 2006 with a final judgment awarding the former wife $7,046 monthly in permanent periodic alimony. In late …
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 Motion To Enforce Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Robert R. Koch, Jr. (the Former Husband) appeals the order to secure alimony that was entered after a hearing on the motion for contempt and to secure alimony award and enforce final judgment filed by Judith Redfern Koch (the Former Wife). We reverse.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved in July 2006 by a final judgment that awarded the Former Wife $7046 a month in permanent periodic alimony. In late 2007, the Former Husband sent the Former Wife two letters stating that he and his new wife would be moving to St. Maarten, where he had taken a teaching job that would significantly lower his income. In anticipation of that occurrence, the Former Wife filed a motion for contempt and to secure alimony award and enforce final judgment. The motion stated that the Former Husband has up to several million dollars in retirement and/or liquid assets that should be used as security for any outstanding alimony in light of his intention to leave the country.
A hearing was held on the motion, but it was not transcribed. The trial court entered an order prohibiting the Former Husband from encumbering, transferring, or disposing of the former marital home so that it may serve as security for the award of permanent periodic alimony to the Former Wife.1 However, the Former Wife did not mention the former marital home in her motion.2 Because of the lack of a transcript of the hearing, we do not know if use of the home to secure alimony was tried by consent. Most significantly, the trial court’s order modified the final judgment of dissolution of marriage without the Former Wife having filed an appropriate pleading — a supplemental petition to modify. See Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 961 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“In order for the trial court to modify a final judgment, the moving party must present the issue by appropriate pleadings.”). The court’s order being fundamentally erroneous on its face, we reverse. See Hoirup v. Hoirup, 862 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“[W]here a trial transcript or proper substitute does not appear in the record on appeal, the trial court’s order must be upheld unless the order is fundamentally erroneous on its face.”). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the other two issues raised by the Former Husband in this appeal.
Reversed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . Of note is the fact that the alimony award was originally secured by a $200,000 life insurance policy. All indications are that this policy remains in effect.
. There is no indication that the Former Wife retained any interest in the former marital home.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dashiwa Corp. v. Tashi Valley, Inc., 862 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Hoirup v. Thora H. Hoirup, 862 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Pomeranz v. Ina T. Pomeranz, 961 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)