JENNIFER L. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY LYNN HOLMES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the attorney fees order and the debt provisions interpretation but reversed the child support modification for lack of proper notice and pleading, and remanded for credit on assigned marital debts.
A trial court cannot modify child support without a pleading seeking that relief and proper notice to the former wife, even if child support is mentioned in the proceeding.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to modify child support without a pleading seeking modification and proper notice to the obligor or obligee, regardless of incidental mentio…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The mere mention of child support in a proceeding does not authorize the trial court to modify child support without notice nor does that mere mention constitute the implied consent to try the issue.”
Explaining the requirement for proper pleading and notice before modifying child support
Jennifer L. Brown appealed two post-dissolution orders from her divorce with Jerry Lynn Holmes, challenging the trial court's handling of attorney fee…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Defend cases and more on FLexlaw
Jennifer L. Brown brings a consolidated appeal of two post-dissolution orders entered by the trial court. We affirm the Stipulated Order on Attorney Fees without further discussion. We affirm the trial court’s interpretation of the debt provisions of the marital settlement agreement except for the court’s failure to give the former wife credit for the debts totaling the amount of $8,307.62 which she was assigned to pay. It is undisputed that either these debts have been satisfied or the former wife is still solely obligated to pay the debts. In either event, she should have received appropriate credit. Finally, we reverse the trial court’s modification of child support. No pleading was filed seeking that relief and the former wife was not given appropriate notice or an opportunity to defend the reduction of child support. Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So.2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The mere mention of child support in a proceeding-does not authorize the trial court to modify child support without notice nor does that mere mention constitute the implied consent to try the issue. Newberry, 831 So.2d at 751.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Sohacki v. Sohacki, 657 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)