Grillo v. Clay

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grillo v. Clay

59 So. 3d 337, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5976, 2011 WL 1563895

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-4553

StatusPublished

This text of 59 So. 3d 337 (Grillo v. Clay) 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

Grillo v. Clay, 59 So. 3d 337, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5976, 2011 WL 1563895 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Grillo appeals the trial court’s order modifying his child support obligation by requiring him to pay for private preschool tuition for the minor child. Because the trial court issued this order without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the order is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall hold an evi-dentiary hearing on the matter, assuming it is still relevant, before entering a new order addressing the preschool tuition issue. Further, we note that the order itself was defective in that it conditioned Grillo’s exercise of time sharing upon his payment of the new preschool tuition obligation. See, e.g., Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So.2d 772, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A parent’s visitation rights may not be conditioned on the payment of the parent’s financial obligations, including the payment of child support.”).

We decline to address the remaining issues raised by the parties.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Grillo appeals the trial court’s order modifying his child support obligation by requiring him to pay for private preschool tuition for the minor child. Because the trial court issued this order without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the order is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall hold an evi-dentiary hearing on the matter, assuming it is still relevant, before entering a new order addressing the preschool tuition issue. Further, we note that the order itself was defective in that it conditioned Grillo’s exercise of time sharing upon his payment of the new preschool tuition obligation. See, e.g., Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So.2d 772, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A parent’s visitation rights may not be conditioned on the payment of the parent’s financial obligations, including the payment of child support.”).

We decline to address the remaining issues raised by the parties.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 3d 337, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5976, 2011 WL 1563895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grillo-v-clay-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack