¶1Melvin A. Rubin, for appellants.
¶2Reginald Jerome Powell, in pro. per.
¶3Before NESBITT, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5We reverse the order modifying a child support obligation because there was no pleading or motion filed requesting such modification which would have afforded the appellant adequate and proper notice of *1146 the requested relief. E.g., Pace v. Pace,471 So.2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sweetland v. Gauntlett,460 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Valdes v. Valdes,460 So.2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court may not circumvent such required pleadings by ordering a child support modification on its own motion, see Koken v. Neubauer,374 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), unless proper notice is given so that the opposing party has a fair opportunity to oppose the motion.
¶6Reversed.