SANDRA L. ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY J. COSTANZA, JR., 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 held that the trial court erred in changing the date of termination of child support because that issue was not submitted to the court.
[1] A trial court cannot modify a child support termination date when that issue was not raised, litigated, or argued by the parties.
[2] A court may not address issues not submitted to it by the parties, even if those issues are related to the overall case.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties divorced in 1965, with the father ordered to pay child support. The final decree was amended in 1968. The complaint in this cause solely c…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Although no pleadings or evidence was adduced at the post decretal hearing concerning this matter, the principal question presented by this interlocutory appeal is that the court erred in changing the date of termination of child support. We agree and reverse.
The parties were divorced in June of 1965, with the mother (appellant) gaining custody of the two boys and the father (appellee) ordered to provide monthly support of $125.00 for each child until they reached the age of twenty-one years and for one year thereafter if enrolled in a college or university. The final decree was amended in the year 1968 by increasing child support to $135.00 per month per child and terminating support upon the child reaching the age of twenty-one years, marrying, deceasing, or becoming self-supporting. The complaint filed in this cause solely concerned the question of increasing child support. The answer was in the form of a general denial. Thus, issue was joined. The evidence adduced did not comment upon the question of terminating child support, it was not raised or discussed or argued. “Even in this day of modern pleading, advocates must at some stage of the trial proceeding join issue on the controversy.” Buchanan v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 286 So. 2d 223 (La.App. 1st, 1973). See also St. Joe Paper Company v. Connell, 299 So. 2d 92 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974), and Teta v. Teta, 297 So. 2d 642 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974).
By way of caveat, we do not consider or pass upon the question of the time for terminating the payment of child support; we simply say that question was not submitted to the trial court and was improperly dealt with in the subject order. Appellant also argues that the trial court, by increasing child support of $50.00 per month per child, failed to adequately provide for the needs of the children. After carefully considering the briefs and appendices, it is concluded that the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion and thus this point is without merit.
The order appealed is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCONNELL v. Brumos Porsche Audi Corp., 297 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Dina Teta v. Teta, 297 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Buchanan v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 286 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Connell, 299 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)