CYNTHIA CREO OPATZ N/K/A CYNTHIA CREO LOMBARD, APPELLANT,
v.
KEVAN JOHN OPATZ, 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.
Trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure when referring a child support enforcement matter to a General Magistrate, denying the appellant due process by modifying child support without proper petition and report procedures.
Failure to follow Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure when a General Magistrate conducts a hearing without filing a Report and Recommendations, and modification of child support obligations without a petition or notice of hearing, constitutes an abuse of discretion and denial of due process.
[1] Failure to comply with Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure requiring a General Magistrate to file a Report and Recommendations and providing the moving party an opportu…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought enforcement of child support through a Motion for Civil Contempt for non-payment. The trial court referred the matter to a General Ma…
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 Exceptions To Magistrate'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement for non-payment of child support, the record before us demonstrates that the safeguards mandated by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure were not followed.
The trial court referred the Motion to a General Magistrate pursuant to Rule 12.490. The General Magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing, but failed to file a Report and Recommendations and an Order. Yet, the trial court proceeded to deny Appellant’s Motion, and modified Ap-pellee’s child support obligation without the filing of a Petition or Notice of Hearing, apparently relying on the evidence presented to the General Master.
Failure to follow the procedures established by Rule 1.490 constitutes an abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Starling, 56 So.3d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant was not provided with a Report and an opportunity to file Exceptions. Modification of the Appellee’s child support obligations .without the filing of a Petition constitutes a denial of due process.
Given the passage of time, we reverse and remand for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing de novo.
Reversed and Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.