RITA HARTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DON LESLIE HARTMAN, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's order denying the former wife's contempt motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the marital settlement agreement's college expense provision without a pending motion to modify.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a final marital settlement agreement absent a pending motion for modification.
[1] A trial court is without jurisdiction to modify a final marital settlement agreement or judgment of dissolution absent a pending motion for modification filed before the…
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“A trial court is without jurisdiction to modify a final judgment where no petition for modification has been filed.”
Court stating the controlling legal principle regarding trial court jurisdiction over final judgments.
The former wife sought to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to pay his one-half share of college expenses for their oldest son under the…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The former wife appeals a non-final order denying her motion to hold the former husband in contempt for failing to pay his one-half share of the college expenses of the parties’ oldest son, pursuant to the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement. We reverse because, absent a pending motion to modify, the trial court lacked authority to modify the terms of the marital settlement agreement by ordering that the former husband be required to reimburse the former wife for only one-half of the cost of the oldest son’s college education, based on what the cost would have been if the child had attended a state university in Florida on his Bright Futures scholarship.1 See Chaphe v. Chaphe, 19 So.3d 1019, 1023-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that where there was no motion pending before the trial court for modification of the martial settlement agreement or the judgment of dissolution, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the father’s obligations for the children’s educational expenses). A trial court is without jurisdiction to modify a final judgment where no petition for modification has been filed. Torres v. Marzelli, 657 So.2d 943, 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Leibowitz v. Leibowitz, 611 So.2d 629, 629-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So.2d 297, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Anthony v. Snell, 630 So.2d 606, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLEN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barbara J. Anthony & the State of Fla. v. Snell, 630 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Goldman-Link, P.A. v. Kerner, 611 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Paul v. State, 548 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Torres v. Marzelli, 657 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Chaphe v. Chaphe, 19 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Riley Mitchell v. State, 657 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)