Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

256 So. 2d 25

Docket No. P-270.

Lourcey v. Lourcey

Mary Catherine LOURCEY, Appellant, v. Joseph Justin LOURCEY, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 30, 1971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1971-12-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The oral motion made by the defendant (appellee) does not satisfy the requirement that a pleading is necessary”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Purvis v. Carver

Relies on 151 So. 2d 294 - Goff v. Goff · Taylor v. Taylor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-12-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2011

11 state decisions

5019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*26 Barry L. Zisser, Jacksonville, for appellant.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3JOHNSON, Judge.

¶4This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, modifying a final judgment by reducing the sums of money for support of minor children as originally stipulated to and ordered in the final decree.

¶5The defendant was in arrears in payment of alimony and child support monies, and so found by the trial court. The trial court also found the defendant not to be in contempt of court, but did, upon motion for defendant, modify the final decree so as to reduce the child support from $400.00 per month to $300.00 per month. This motion was orally moved by the defendant.

¶6From this order, plaintiff enters this interlocutory appeal.

¶7The defendant has not filed a brief, although plaintiff has perfected her appeal, including a brief.

¶8This case falls squarely before the ruling of the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal in the following cases, to wit: Taylor v. Taylor, 143 So.2d 516 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1962) and Goff v. Goff, 151 So.2d 294 (Fla.App.3rd, 1963), wherein both courts held that the chancellor was without jurisdiction to summarily change child support provisions of a divorce decree, which had become final where no pleading had been filed directed to modification of decree. The oral motion made by the defendant does not satisfy the requirement that a pleading is necessary.

¶9Said order appealed from is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings, not in conflict herewith.

¶10Reversed and remanded.

¶11SPECTOR, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

/256/so2d/25 · .json · Public domain