RICHARD ALLEN HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
VANESSA MARIA CALDERIN, 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.
Richard Allen Hill appeals a trial court order requiring him to pay $305.50 per month in child support. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in modifying a prior child support order that had determined no child support was owed based on equal parental time-sharing, without a petition for modification based on changed circumstances.
The court reversed, holding that where a prior court order determining child support exists, a trial court may not increase or change the amount of child support except upon a petition for modification. Because the mother did not appeal the prior order determining no child support was owed and did not file a petition for modification alleging changed circumstances, the trial court erred in entering a new child support order.
[1] An appellate court may review a lower court judgment for error apparent on its face, notwithstanding the absence of a trial transcript.
[2] A trial court may not increase child support payments when a prior order determining child support exists, absent a petition for modification.
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“Where an order determining child support exists, a trial court may not increase the amount of child support, except upon a petition for modification.”
Establishes the legal standard for modifying child support orders; requires petition for modification rather than unilateral trial court action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe unmarried father and mother had a child and were granted shared parental responsibility. The Florida Department of Revenue filed a petition for ch…
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 Sole Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Richard Allen Hill (“the father”) appeals from an order of child support. We reverse.
The father and Vanessa Maria Calderin (“the mother”) were unmarried and had a child. Soon after the child’s birth, the father’s paternity was determined by court order. The parents were awarded shared parental responsibility and provided a schedule for the child to be with each parent on certain days.
Several years later, the Florida Department of Revenue, on behalf of the mother, filed a petition for child support. The matter was referred to a general magistrate (“the GM”) who heard testimony from both parents. The GM determined that the child spent fifty percent of her time with each parent. Accordingly, the GM ruled that the child support guidelines totaled zero, and recommended no child support payments. The trial court ratified the GM’s recommendations.
A few months thereafter, the father filed the instant action seeking sole parental responsibility for the child. The mother answered the father’s petition, and moved for child support. The father, pro se, requested that the mother’s motion for child support be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Attaching a copy of the order ratifying the GM’s recommendations, the father argued that the matter of child support had been fully determined in the prior action.
Without ruling on the father’s jurisdictional objection, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing where both parties testified. The record contains no transcript of this hearing. However, the trial *854court thereafter entered an order directing the father to pay $305.50 per month in child support.
On appeal, the father inter alia asserts that the trial court erred in entering an order of child support because the issue of child support previously had been resolved by a court order. The mother contends that this Court may not review the order under appeal because the father failed to provide a transcript of the eviden-tiary hearing. We agree with the father and reverse.
Generally, where an appellant fails to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 877 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, however, an appellate court may review a lower court judgment for error apparent on its face. See Howle v. Howle, 967 So.2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Kanter v. Ranter, 850 So.2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Where an order determining child support exists, a trial court may not increase the amount of child support, except upon a petition for modification. Torres v. Torres, 739 So.2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Moreover, the Florida Department of Revenue is authorized to file an action to recover child support on behalf of a dependent child’s custodian. § 409.2561, Fla. Stat. (2009); Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So.2d 749 (Fla.1982).
Here, the Florida Department of Revenue 'filed such an action on behalf of the mother. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that no child support payments were necessary because the child spent equal time with each parent. The mother did not appeal from this order. Additionally, she has not filed a petition for modification of child support based on a change of circumstances. Thus, the trial court erred in changing the prior child support determination without pleading or proof of changed circumstances.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order directing the father to pay child support.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Vicente J. Fernandes, 149 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ndes maintains this mandates affirmance. We cannot agree. In the instant case, the error appears on the face of the record which grants relief not noticed and without the requisite evidentiary hearing, findings, or due process. See Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("Generally, where an appellant fails to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the trial [*750] court's judgment must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (FIa.1979). Notwithst…
-
Arleen Hanna-Mack v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 218 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ere is no transcript of those hearings, see Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979), this is not fatal to appellate review because the errors in the present case are apparent on the face of the record. Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The Bank also defends the original dismissal of all seven counts alleged in the complaint. Under the de novo standard of review applicable to her complaint, however, several of the counts should have survived the dismissal…
-
Rajnauth Bisnauth v. Leelum, 233 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…e factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal”). Our review is limited to whether any error is apparent on the face of the order on appeal. Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding: “Generally, where an appellant fails to provide the appellate court with a trial transcript, the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, however, an appellate court may…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1982)
- Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Torres v. Torres, 739 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Howle v. Laureen Leann Howle, 967 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)