Morgan v. Morgan, AL-167
| Decision Date | 05 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AL-167,AL-167 |
| Parties | Scherlene K. MORGAN, Appellant, v. Carl F. MORGAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lyman T. Fletcher of Fletcher & Fletcher, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Paul M. Harden of Smith, Davenport, Bloom & Harden, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellant seeks review of an order whereby she was found to be in contempt of court and payments made by appellee for the support of the parties' minor child were temporarily reduced. We find the adjudication of contempt to be without error, but we determine that appellee's child support obligation was not susceptible of modification in the proceeding below.
The parties' marriage had previously been dissolved pursuant to a decree which mandated that:
The wife [appellant] is directed and required to hold the husband [appellee] harmless on any debts to the parents of the wife until such time as any confessions of judgments or affidavits of judgments outstanding are returned to the attorney for the husband ....
Appellant declined to comply with this provision of the dissolution decree and was properly found to be in contempt of court for such willful refusal. But, in the context of the present proceeding, the trial court erred in temporarily reducing appellee's child support obligation "until this debt is satisfied." Although a court has broad powers to insure enforcement of its orders, § 61.13(1), Florida Statutes, permits modification of an obligation for the support of a minor child only when the best interests of the child are served, or a substantial change of circumstances exists so as to justify the modification. Such modification must be specifically requested with notice to the adverse party, and may not ensue upon a motion for contempt. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In the present case modification was neither requested nor noticed, and the trial court's limited inquiry did not fully ascertain the The order appealed is hereby amended so as to delete the temporary modification of appellee's child support obligation, and as amended the order appealed is affirmed.
financial circumstances of the parties or the best interests of the parties' minor child. In these circumstances it was error to modify appellee's child support obligation.
I concur in the majority opinion in its affirmance of the finding of contempt but dissent from its reversal of the second point on appeal.
My difference with the majority begins with its characterization of the trial judge's order on motion for rehearing. 1 In the majority opinion the order is called a temporary reduction of appellee's child support obligation. It is not that at all. It provides merely a method by which the appellee can be repaid by appellant for the financial injury that he has suffered because of her contemptuous behavior.
The order was entered after the trial judge had inquired and determined that appellee had become employed since the dissolution and was financially able to reimburse appellant for the financial injury that she had caused him without affecting the child's welfare. This is especially clear when we consider that this form of payment was selected by the trial judge instead of his earlier requirement in the original order of contempt by which appellant was required to spend 180 days in jail unless she purged herself by paying appellee $22,700.00 or having the judgment against appellant satisfied. The trial judge chose to let appellant pay appellee $200.00 per month until he was made whole. By allowing appellee to retain $100.00 from each payment going to appellant the financial exchange was simpler and, in addition, this is a practical way for the contempt order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Burns, 94-1729
...support must be specifically requested with notice to the adverse party and may not ensue upon a motion for contempt. Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). A trial court cannot circumvent the required pleadings by ordering child support modification on its own motion unless p......
-
Wozniak v. Wozniak
...of circumstances of either party, the trial court may not modify the terms of a child custody and support order. Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 356 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 ......
-
King v. King, 87-1945
...judgment of dissolution without a petition for modification addressing that issue having been filed as required in Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Although the trial court denied wife's motion for contempt, it appears that the court, in ordering husband to pay the medic......
-
Betancourt v. Sanders
...child must be "specifically requested with notice to the adverse party, and may not ensue upon a motion for contempt." Morgan v. Morgan, 429 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Porbansky, 569 So.2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The appellee......