Causey v. Causey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Causey v. Causey

36 So. 3d 893, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697, 2010 WL 2219732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 2010

Docket1D08-3738

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 So. 3d 893 (Causey v. Causey) 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

Causey v. Causey, 36 So. 3d 893, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697, 2010 WL 2219732 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the proceeding below, the appellant petitioned for a modification of his child support obligation. Before the trial court, he was partially successful, but raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to the first two issues without further discussion and reverse as to the third.

In addition to the partial modification of the appellant’s child support obligation, the trial court also changed the schedule of reimbursing non-covered health and child care costs and provided for the entry of a bond to cover anticipated health and child care costs. This relief was not requested in the pleadings of either party and is therefore reversed. See Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

HAWKES, C.J.; PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the proceeding below, the appellant petitioned for a modification of his child support obligation. Before the trial court, he was partially successful, but raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to the first two issues without further discussion and reverse as to the third.

In addition to the partial modification of the appellant’s child support obligation, the trial court also changed the schedule of reimbursing non-covered health and child care costs and provided for the entry of a bond to cover anticipated health and child care costs. This relief was not requested in the pleadings of either party and is therefore reversed. See Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

HAWKES, C.J.; PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 So. 3d 893, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697, 2010 WL 2219732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/causey-v-causey-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack