Betancourt v. Sanders

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Betancourt v. Sanders

629 So. 2d 272, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12339, 1993 WL 521220

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1993

DocketNo. 93-941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 629 So. 2d 272 (Betancourt v. Sanders) 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

Betancourt v. Sanders, 629 So. 2d 272, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12339, 1993 WL 521220 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Bernadette Betancourt appeal an order reducing the appellee’s child support obligation. We reverse.

Modification of an obligation for the support of a minor child must be “specifically requested with notice to the adverse party, and may not ensue upon a motion for contempt.” Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The appellee did not properly invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction to modify the support order by the filing of a motion for that relief. The appellant did not receive due process notice and opportunity to be heard as to the modification and reduction of the existing child support order.

Accordingly, the income deduction order and the modification order filed February 15, 1993 are REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.

SMITH, BARFIELD and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Bernadette Betancourt appeal an order reducing the appellee’s child support obligation. We reverse.

Modification of an obligation for the support of a minor child must be “specifically requested with notice to the adverse party, and may not ensue upon a motion for contempt.” Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The appellee did not properly invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction to modify the support order by the filing of a motion for that relief. The appellant did not receive due process notice and opportunity to be heard as to the modification and reduction of the existing child support order.

Accordingly, the income deduction order and the modification order filed February 15, 1993 are REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.

SMITH, BARFIELD and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 So. 2d 272, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12339, 1993 WL 521220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betancourt-v-sanders-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack