Alexander v. Alexander, 96-1810
| Decision Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1810,96-1810 |
| Citation | 683 So.2d 172 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2440 Veronica L. ALEXANDER, n/k/a Veronica Bell Williams, Appellant, v. Verdell H. ALEXANDER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sarah H. Bohr and Leslie C. Scott of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
This court's opinion issued October 11, 1996 is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor.
Veronica Bell Williams, the former wife of appellee, Verdell H. Alexander, appeals three orders of the trial court which required Williams to pay child support and terminated Alexander's child support obligation as of a date prior to the date of the filing of his motion to terminate child support. Williams contends, first, that the trial court erroneously terminated Alexander's child support obligation retroactive to December 12, 1995, arguing that child support may only be modified prospectively from February 23, 1996, the date Alexander's motion was filed. Second, she contends the trial court erroneously entered orders imposing on her a child support obligation and income deduction when the pleadings did not request such relief and she did not have notice that this issue would be tried or a fair opportunity to respond. We agree and reverse.
When the parties divorced in 1993, Williams was given primary residential custody of their minor children, and Alexander was ordered to pay child support of $400 per month. On December 12, 1995, Alexander was given temporary custody of the children. On February 23, 1996, he filed a motion to terminate child support, alleging the minor children were now living with him.
A hearing on Alexander's motion was held before a child support hearing officer, who recommended that Alexander's support obligation be terminated. Sua sponte, the hearing officer also undertook to determine Williams' ability to pay child support and found that she should pay $60 per week in child support and court costs. The hearing officer, however, did not issue a report setting forth his recommendation that Ms. Williams should pay child support and court costs. 1 Nonetheless, the circuit court entered an order requiring Williams to make child support payments to her former husband and awarding costs. At the same time, the court entered a corresponding income deduction order as to Williams and an order terminating Alexander's child support obligations retroactive to December 12, 1995.
As this court recently stated in Williams v. Williams, --- So.2d ----, ---- , 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2048, D2049 (Fla. 1st DCA September 11, 1996), "[i]t is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief." Alexander's motion for termination of child support did not seek child support, and Williams had no notice that this issue would be addressed at the hearing. Further, her attorney was not present at the hearing, and the transcript of the hearing reveals Williams' surprise that this issue was being addressed when no request had been made that she pay child support. Because Williams did not have notice that the trial court would consider awarding child support to Alexander, the trial court erred in requiring Williams to pay child support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newberry v. Newberry, 5D02-362.
...party is surprised and cannot be afforded a sufficient opportunity to be heard and present his case. See, e.g., Alexander v. Alexander, 683 So.2d 172, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). But in this case, the appellant pled and raised the issue of child support, even submitting the figures relied upon......
-
Moody v. Moody
...past-due child support payments is ordinarily considered a vested property right for the benefit of the child. Alexander v. Alexander , 683 So.2d 172, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). One must continue paying the court-ordered amount of support until and unless a motion for modification has been fi......
-
Laliberte v. Laliberte, 96-960
...of alimony and child support at least from the date of the filing of the petition for modification. See Alexander v. Alexander, 683 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Chapman, 638 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Morgan v. Morgan, 590 So.2d 56......
-
Spaeth v. Spaeth, 96-00381
...in the pretrial stipulation. Under these circumstances, it was error to order the wife to pay support. See, e.g., Alexander v. Alexander, 683 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(error to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords an oppor......
-
Pleadings and mandatory electronic filing
...v. Wilkes, 768 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (child’s right to child support may not be waived by parents); Alexander v. Alexander, 683 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (trial court erred in requiring former wife to pay child support and in entering income deduction order as to wife where fo......