Allen v. Hall-Allen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. Hall-Allen

906 So. 2d 333, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10493, 2005 WL 1554262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-587

StatusPublished

This text of 906 So. 2d 333 (Allen v. Hall-Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Hall-Allen, 906 So. 2d 333, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10493, 2005 WL 1554262 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A father appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay child support entered after a post-dissolution proceeding in which the father had requested visitation with his child. The order recites that the issue of child support was heard on the court’s own motion at the same time it awarded the father visitation. There is no order by which the court set the support issue for hearing or alerted the father that the issue of child support would be addressed. Because his right of due process was violated by the court’s failure to give him notice that the issue would be considered, we reverse. See Mizrahi v. Mizrahi, 867 So.2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Fuchs v. Fuchs, 840 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“general rule is that a court cannot determine matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings”) (quoting Hart v. Hart, 458 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)).

Reversed.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A father appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay child support entered after a post-dissolution proceeding in which the father had requested visitation with his child. The order recites that the issue of child support was heard on the court’s own motion at the same time it awarded the father visitation. There is no order by which the court set the support issue for hearing or alerted the father that the issue of child support would be addressed. Because his right of due process was violated by the court’s failure to give him notice that the issue would be considered, we reverse. See Mizrahi v. Mizrahi, 867 So.2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Fuchs v. Fuchs, 840 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“general rule is that a court cannot determine matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings”) (quoting Hart v. Hart, 458 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)).

Reversed.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 333, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10493, 2005 WL 1554262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-hall-allen-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack