Opatz v. Opatz
This text of 67 So. 3d 446 (Opatz v. Opatz) 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.
Opinion
In this appeal from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement for non-payment of child support, the record before us demonstrates that the safeguards mandated by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure were not followed.
The trial court referred the Motion to a General Magistrate pursuant to Rule 12.490. The General Magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing, but failed to file a Report and Recommendations and an Order. Yet, the trial court proceeded to deny Appellant’s Motion, and modified Ap-pellee’s child support obligation without the filing of a Petition or Notice of Hearing, apparently relying on the evidence presented to the General Master.
Failure to follow the procedures established by Rule 1.490 constitutes an abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Starling, 56 So.3d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant was not provided with a Report and an opportunity to file Exceptions. Modification of the Appellee’s child support obligations .without the filing of a Petition constitutes a denial of due process.
Given the passage of time, we reverse and remand for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing de novo.
Reversed and Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 So. 3d 446, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13347, 2011 WL 3687434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opatz-v-opatz-fladistctapp-2011.