Case Name: Enoch Morgan STICKNEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary Agnes Sellers STICKNEY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-01-31
Citations: 377 So. 2d 187
Docket Number: No. JJ-402
Parties: Enoch Morgan STICKNEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary Agnes Sellers STICKNEY, Appellee.
Judges: BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 377
Pages: CCLXVII–CCLXXI

Head Matter:
Enoch Morgan STICKNEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary Agnes Sellers STICKNEY, Appellee.
No. JJ-402.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 31, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1979.
Jack A. Harnett, of Johnson, Harnett & Curry, Quincy, for appellant.
Michael Mck. Wilson, of Duggar & Wilson, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
Appellant (husband) seeks reversal of an order modifying a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case by changing the rehabilitative alimony awarded appellee (wife) in the judgment to permanent alimony.
The husband contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the wife's petition for modification because service on him, a nonresident, by mail did not give the court jurisdiction over him where the judgment failed to reserve jurisdiction to award permanent alimony in the future. We agree and reverse.
In the original proceeding, the wife sought rehabilitative and permanent alimony. The court awarded her rehabilitative alimony. The judgment did not reserve jurisdiction to award permanent alimony in the future.
Before the period provided for rehabilitative alimony lapsed, the wife timely moved for a modification of the judgment, praying for an increase in the amount of the alimony. The husband was served with a copy of the petition and notice of hearing by mail. He timely moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over his person. The court denied his motion.
Timely proceedings to increase the amount of alimony awarded by a judgment in a dissolution of marriage action are supplemental to the judgment and are merely a continuation of the original proceedings. The parties having been properly brought within the jurisdiction of the trial court at the outset, the modification proceedings may be brought on a reasonable notice which affords an opportunity to be heard. Notice may be by mail provided it is reasonable and adequate opportunity is afforded the opposing party to be heard and defend against the petition for modification. Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Sikes, however, is not applicable to the facts in the case before us because the court did not reserve or retain jurisdiction to award permanent alimony in the future. See Camerano v. Camerano, 340 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The wife should have proceeded under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(h) which requires new service of process.
In addition, under Sikes, it is our opinion that the notice was insufficient to fairly permit the husband to defend because the petition merely notified him that the wife was seeking an increase in the amount of rehabilitative alimony, whereas she was actually seeking a change from rehabilitative alimony to permanent alimony.
Other intriguing issues have been raised but having decided the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction of the husband it is unnecessary that we discuss them.
We reverse the order appealed.
BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents.