Case Name: Scherlene K. MORGAN, Appellant, v. Carl F. MORGAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-04-05
Citations: 429 So. 2d 432
Docket Number: No. AL-167
Parties: Scherlene K. MORGAN, Appellant, v. Carl F. MORGAN, Appellee.
Judges: SHIVERS, J, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 429
Pages: 432–434

Head Matter:
Scherlene K. MORGAN, Appellant, v. Carl F. MORGAN, Appellee.
No. AL-167.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 5, 1983.
Lyman T. Fletcher of Fletcher & Fletcher, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Paul M. Harden of Smith, Davenport, Bloom & Harden, Jacksonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
WENTWORTH, Judge.
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 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.
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.
SHIVERS, J, concurs.
JOANOS, J., concurs in part, dissents in part with opinion.