Hendershot v. Hendershot

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hendershot v. Hendershot

742 So. 2d 444, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12390, 1999 WL 741053

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 1999

DocketNo. 99-2097

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 742 So. 2d 444 (Hendershot v. Hendershot) 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

Hendershot v. Hendershot, 742 So. 2d 444, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12390, 1999 WL 741053 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marlene Hendershot appeals a final order that modified the child custody provisions of her dissolution judgment to give her former husband primary residential custody of their son. The order was entered at a hearing that was noticed for the former husband’s motion for contempt. His motion did not seek a change in residence.

We reverse the order because the trial court could not determine matters not noticed for hearing or award relief not sought by the pleadings. See McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So.2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We reject the argument that sufficient notice was provided by the trial court’s written warning to the appellant in a 1997 order that she could lose residential custody if she continued to deny visitation. That two-year-old warning was insufficient to put the appellant on notice that a change of custody might occur as a result of this hearing. See Hart v. Hart, 458 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

REVERSED.

KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marlene Hendershot appeals a final order that modified the child custody provisions of her dissolution judgment to give her former husband primary residential custody of their son. The order was entered at a hearing that was noticed for the former husband’s motion for contempt. His motion did not seek a change in residence.

We reverse the order because the trial court could not determine matters not noticed for hearing or award relief not sought by the pleadings. See McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So.2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We reject the argument that sufficient notice was provided by the trial court’s written warning to the appellant in a 1997 order that she could lose residential custody if she continued to deny visitation. That two-year-old warning was insufficient to put the appellant on notice that a change of custody might occur as a result of this hearing. See Hart v. Hart, 458 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

REVERSED.

KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 444, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12390, 1999 WL 741053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendershot-v-hendershot-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack