Wooding v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wooding v. Williams

581 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5880, 1991 WL 110874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2892

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 985 (Wooding v. Williams) 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

Wooding v. Williams, 581 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5880, 1991 WL 110874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eldrick W. Wooding appeals an order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Wooding filed a motion to reduce his child support obligation. After an eviden-tiary hearing, the trial court denied his request for a reduction. That portion of the order is affirmed.

Appellee Belinda Williams had not requested an increase in child support. However, based on the income figures adduced at the hearing, the trial court sua sponte concluded that the amount of child support should be increased, and so ordered.

We conclude that the requirements of due process dictate that there be notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue presented. See Jackson v. Powell, 546 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). While the court was free to initiate an upward modification on its own motion, the court was obliged to so advise the parties and set a hearing date for an evidentiary hearing on the upward modification. See Gubana v. Gubana, 511 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). As the upward modification was ordered without prior notice, we reverse that part of the order. This ruling is without prejudice to the right of Williams or the court to seek an upward modification on a proper motion with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In light of this ruling, we need not reach Wooding’s other points with respect to the upward modification.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eldrick W. Wooding appeals an order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Wooding filed a motion to reduce his child support obligation. After an eviden-tiary hearing, the trial court denied his request for a reduction. That portion of the order is affirmed.

Appellee Belinda Williams had not requested an increase in child support. However, based on the income figures adduced at the hearing, the trial court sua sponte concluded that the amount of child support should be increased, and so ordered.

We conclude that the requirements of due process dictate that there be notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue presented. See Jackson v. Powell, 546 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). While the court was free to initiate an upward modification on its own motion, the court was obliged to so advise the parties and set a hearing date for an evidentiary hearing on the upward modification. See Gubana v. Gubana, 511 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). As the upward modification was ordered without prior notice, we reverse that part of the order. This ruling is without prejudice to the right of Williams or the court to seek an upward modification on a proper motion with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In light of this ruling, we need not reach Wooding’s other points with respect to the upward modification.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5880, 1991 WL 110874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooding-v-williams-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack