State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Colonel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Colonel

627 So. 2d 1320, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12408, 1993 WL 513189

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 14, 1993·No. No. 93-1572·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants challenge an order in which the court retroactively reduced the appellee’s child support obligation. This order was entered despite the appellants’ assertion that they desired the opportunity to present further evidence and that the court was exceeding the announced scope of the hearing. Because the hearing was held upon motion and notice addressed to the appellee’s contempt of court for failing to comply with the exist[1321] ing support obligation, the court should not have effected a modification of the support obligation in this proceeding. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Nolden, 556 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So.2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants challenge an order in which the court retroactively reduced the appellee’s child support obligation. This order was entered despite the appellants’ assertion that they desired the opportunity to present further evidence and that the court was exceeding the announced scope of the hearing. Because the hearing was held upon motion and notice addressed to the appellee’s contempt of court for failing to comply with the exist[1321] ing support obligation, the court should not have effected a modification of the support obligation in this proceeding. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Nolden, 556 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sentz v. Sentz, 548 So.2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Colonel, 627 So. 2d 1320, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12408, 1993 WL 513189 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

627 So. 2d 1320 (State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Colonel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related