Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

533 So. 2d 337

Docket No. 88-820.

Schnicke v. Schnicke

Elizabeth SCHNICKE, Appellant, v. Loren Lewis SCHNICKE, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 17, 1988.

This page is marked noindex.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-11-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“modify a support order ... unless the court's subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked by appropriate pleadings and that invoked jurisdiction has been perfected by the proper service of process and due process notice and an opportunity to be heard on that issue has been had.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services v. Porbansky, Minda v. Ponce

Relies on 98 So. 2d 334 - Cortina v. Cortina · 497 So. 2d 925 - In Interest of DFW

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-11-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2006

9 state decisions

50198819902000decided

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 →

¶1Richard D. West, Orlando, for appellant.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3ORFINGER, Judge.

¶4The order appealed from is reversed insofar as it transfers the primary residential care of the minor child of the parties from appellant to appellee. This order followed a noticed hearing on appellee's motion to hold appellant in contempt for allegedly *338 disobeying the court's order on visitation. No pleadings were filed requesting a change of custody nor was there any notice that any such change of custody would be heard or considered by the court. The trial court cannot modify a support order or other adjudicated right unless the court's subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked by appropriate pleadings, and that invoked jurisdiction has been perfected by the proper service of process and due process notice and an opportunity to be heard on that issue has been had. Department of H.R.S. v. Wesley,497 So.2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See Cortina v. Cortina,98 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1957) (a decree cannot be modified unless the issue of modification is presented in appropriate proceedings and the parties are given opportunity to be heard).

¶5REVERSED.

¶6DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

/533/so2d/337 · .json · Public domain