Yorke v. Yorke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yorke v. Yorke

848 So. 2d 1215, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10121, 2003 WL 21510815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-5286

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 848 So. 2d 1215 (Yorke v. Yorke) 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

Yorke v. Yorke, 848 So. 2d 1215, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10121, 2003 WL 21510815 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert P. Yorke seeks review of the trial court’s order that granted the amended petition for modification filed by Rhonda Yorke, the former wife, thereby reducing her child support obligation. Although the amended petition raised material issues of fact, only argument of counsel, and no evidence, was presented at the hearing on the amended petition. Appellant argues that the entry of the order without the benefit of evidence was a denial of due process constituting reversible error. See Rucker v. City of Ocala, 684 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In response, appel-lee has filed a “Consent Motion to Reverse and Remand Matter,” which this court treats as a concession of error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert P. Yorke seeks review of the trial court’s order that granted the amended petition for modification filed by Rhonda Yorke, the former wife, thereby reducing her child support obligation. Although the amended petition raised material issues of fact, only argument of counsel, and no evidence, was presented at the hearing on the amended petition. Appellant argues that the entry of the order without the benefit of evidence was a denial of due process constituting reversible error. See Rucker v. City of Ocala, 684 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In response, appel-lee has filed a “Consent Motion to Reverse and Remand Matter,” which this court treats as a concession of error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 So. 2d 1215, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10121, 2003 WL 21510815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yorke-v-yorke-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack