MARILYN K. VANCE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES F. VANCE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's modification eliminating alimony and child support as punishment for denying visitation, holding that alimony cannot be used as a sanction for visitation denial and child support modification must be properly pleaded and justified.
Alimony cannot be eliminated as punishment for denial of child visitation rights, and child support modification not encompassed by pleadings or raised by litigants must be reversed.
[1] Alimony cannot be eliminated or suspended as a sanction or punishment for a former spouse's denial of court-ordered child visitation rights.
[2] Modification of child support obligations not encompassed by the pleadings or raised by the litigants must be reversed absent an emergency or showing that the minor child…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Alimony can not be eliminated as a punishment for the denial of child visitation privileges.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal principle regarding use of alimony as sanction for visitation denial.
A divorced husband petitioned for contempt against his ex-wife for denying him child visitation rights under the amended judgment. The trial court mod…
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 Petition For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Responding to the divorced husband’s petition for an order adjudging the divorced wife to be in contempt for denying the husband’s child visitation rights provided in the amended judgment, the trial court entered the appealed order which modified the final judgment by eliminating the husband’s obligation to pay alimony and child support until such time as the wife allowed visitation. We reverse. Alimony can not be eliminated as a punishment for the denial of child visitation privileges. Hardy v. Hardy, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 106.
As concerns the elimination of child support payments, we note that the adjudication was neither an emergency matter nor was the welfare of the minor child in balance. Longo v. Longo, Fla. App.1971, 245 So.2d 658. Thus the modification being not encompassed by the pleadings or otherwise raised by the litigants must be reversed upon authority of Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 334. See also Scheer v. Scheer, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 456. Our opinion here is to be interpreted as being without prejudice to the rights of the parties to institute and maintain the usual contempt proceedings or to seek specific modification of the judgment as provided by Section 61.14, F.S.1971, F.S.A., as they are advised. See Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 63; Annot. 95 A.L.R.2d 118 (1964).
Reversed.
REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clayton v. Clayton, 380 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…e rule applied with respect to future payments, however, is that “the court should not refuse to require these payments for the support of the minor children where the children will thus be required to suffer.” Hardy, supra. Also see Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), and Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959), which indicate that the welfare of the child must be considered when suspending support payments due to a denial o…
-
Jeri Lee Gordon v. Gordon, 368 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…entions to continue to comply with said Final Judgment, then the Court will consider the entry of an Order further modifying the aforesaid Final Judgment to reinstate future alimony payments. On appeal the wife relies on the case of Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) for the proposition that alimony cannot be eliminated as a punishment for the denial of child visitation privileges. In Vance an order terminating alimony was entered in contempt proceedings brought against the wife, rather than…
-
Elinor Chechak Gardner v. Gardner, 467 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…the children would not suffer from the loss of support. See Clayton v. Clayton, 380 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); (c) The impropriety of granting relief not sought; namely, the termination of all college educational benefits. See Vance v. Vance, 274 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); (d) The impropriety of granting modification without a material substantial change of circumstances. See § 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1983); (e) The impropriety of not ruling upon the counter-petition that was in issue on April 16, 198…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Scheer v. Scheer, 132 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Hardy v. Hardy, 118 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Longo v. Longo, 245 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)