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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

DocketNo. 93-1572

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 1320 (State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Colonel) 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

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

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]*1321ing 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]*1321ing 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1320, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12408, 1993 WL 513189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-v-colonel-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack