Brown v. Brown

825 So. 2d 519, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13206, 2002 WL 31026843
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. Brown. Read the opinion of the Court — 800 So. 2d 359
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 12, 2002·No. No. 1D01-4549·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order dissolving the parties’ marriage, whereby the court addressed various matters including the amount of a support arrearage. Because the question of such an arrearage was neither encompassed by the pleadings for relief nor noticed for hearing, the court should not have addressed this matter. See e.g. State, Department of Revenue v. Strickler, 702 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Peterson v. Mathies, 687 So.2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Such a ruling was not compelled under section 61.14(5)(a) with regard to the current support obligation, and the appealed order is reversed insofar as it pertains to the question of a support arrearage. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, C.J., BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

Brown v. Brown, 825 So. 2d 519, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13206, 2002 WL 31026843 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

825 So. 2d 519 (Brown v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Strickler
702 So. 2d 277 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Peterson v. Mathies
687 So. 2d 47 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)