LIDIA NISR F/K/A LIDIA BARAKAT, APPELLANT,
v.
MAGED BARAKAT, 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.
Affirmed; trial court properly modified visitation where the modification issue was tried by implied consent without objection from the opposing party.
When an issue is tried by implied consent without objection, due process concerns are alleviated and the trial court may properly address it even if not raised by written pleadings.
[1] When an issue not raised by pleadings is tried by implied consent without objection from the opposing party, it is treated as if properly raised and due process concerns…
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“Florida courts have repeatedly held that it is a violation of a parent's due process rights for a court to modify visitation in a final judgment unless the issue of modification is properly presented to it by written pleadings, noticed to the parties, or litigated below.”
Foerster v. Foerster, establishing the general rule that modification requires proper presentation, but noting the exception for implied consent.
A parent appealed a trial court's modification of visitation rights in a final judgment.…
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 Modification Of Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See C.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 9 So.3d 750, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that when an issue is tried by implied consent, due process concerns are alleviated; noting that “[ijmplied consent arises when arguments and evidence are presented on the issue without objection by the opposing party”); Foerster v. Foerster, 885 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Florida courts have repeatedly held that it is a violation of a parent’s due process rights for a court to modify visitation in a final judgment unless the *213issue of modification is properly presented to it by written pleadings, noticed to the parties, or litigated below.”) (emphasis added); Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that “when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by implied consent, they are to be treated as if they had been raised in the pleading”; finding that issue regarding child support reduction was not tried by implied consent where ex-wife “objected to the trial court hearing evidence on matters that were not properly pled”); Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 549 So.2d 203, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“In granting relief which was neither requested by appropriate pleadings, nor tried by consent, the trial court entered the order in violation of ... due process rights.”) (emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Todaro v. Todaro, 704 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- In the Interest of D.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 9 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Clark v. State, 885 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 549 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)