NADINE ANN BISEL, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. BISEL, 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.
Former wife Nadine Bisel appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a default final judgment. The Fourth District DCA reversed, finding the notice of hearing was insufficient because it failed to describe the supplemental petition for upward modification of child support and former wife did not receive timely notice regarding that petition.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to set aside the default final judgment. The notice of hearing was insufficient because it failed to notify former wife that the court would consider her supplemental petition, she did not receive timely notice of the hearing as it related to that petition, and the trial court rather than the former husband was required to enter an order setting the action for trial.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters not the subject of proper pleading and notice, as ruling on such matters violates a party's due process rig…
[2] A notice of hearing must clearly inform a party of all matters the trial court will consider and rule upon, including supplemental petitions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and notice, and to allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party's due process rights.”
Establishes the fundamental due process requirement that courts must have proper pleadings and notice before ruling on matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNadine Ann Bisel filed a supplemental petition for upward modification of child support. She received notice of a hearing described only as 'FINAL HEA…
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 Timeliness Of Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
Former wife appeals an order denying her amended motion to set aside default or default final judgment and motion for relief from judgment. We agree with the majority of former wife’s arguments concerning the insufficiency of the notice of hearing mailed to her; thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The notice of hearing has several problems, the first of which is that the description failed to notify former wife that the trial court would consider and rule upon her supplemental petition for upward modification of child support.1 See Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So.2d 1244, 1252 (Fla.2008) (“ ‘Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and notice,’ and ‘[t]o allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party’s due process rights.’ ” (quoting Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So.2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003))). Secondly, former wife did not receive timely notice of the hearing as it related to her supplemental petition.2 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c); *834see also Dep’t of Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So.2d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (reversing order denying motion for rehearing as the evidence established the mother received notice of the final hearing on the father’s petition for modification of child support only twelve days before the hearing; the Fifth District cited to the father’s failure to comply with rule 1.440 as its basis for reversal). Finally, pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Proce- • dure 12.440(a), the trial court — not former husband — “was required to enter an order setting the action for trial.” Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So.3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Based on the forgoing, we find the trial court erred in denying former wife’s motion to set aside default final judgment and for relief from judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Korman v. Shapiro (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…reveals, the court itself was required to enter an order setting the action for trial; the Wife’s having sent the Husband notice did not satisfy rule 12.440(a). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution . . . .”); Bisel v. Bisel, 165 So. 3d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Finally, pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.440(a), the trial court—not former husband—‘was required to enter an order setting the action for trial.’” (quoting in part Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d at 37)); M…
Authorities Cited
- Pro-Art Dental LAB, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008)
- Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Marcovitch, 765 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)