Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Juan Ulises Ramirez, Appellant, v. Tiffany R. Gregory, Appellee.
Juan Ramirez (“Father”) timely appeals the circuit court's Amended Final Judgment of Paternity, which determined time-sharing and child support issues with regard to the child (“Child”) that Father shares with Tiffany Gregory (“Mother”). This Court has jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Father contends that the trial court erred when it (1) decided summer time-sharing; (2) declined to impute income to Mother; (3) ordered him to pay toward Child's health insurance; (4) ordered him to pay the full cost of Child's health insurance, which the court calculated as $265 per month; and (5) awarded Mother retroactive child support payments. We affirm, without further discussion, as to the first four issues. However, we reverse as to the circuit court's award of retroactive child support.
“A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter any judgment on an issue not raised by the pleadings,” Newberry v. Newberry, 831 So. 2d 749, 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)), unless the issue is tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, see id.; Scariti v. Sabillon, 16 So. 3d 144, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “An issue is tried by consent when there is no objection to the introduction of evidence on that issue.” Scariti, 16 So. 3d at 145–46. Here, retroactive support was not raised by the pleadings, and Father objected when Mother attempted to introduce evidence on the issue. Only after the objection was overruled did Father present his own evidence on the matter. Therefore, retroactive support was neither pled nor tried by consent, and we must reverse the retroactive support award.
Reversed in part; Affirmed in part.
Per Curiam.
Harris, Kilbane, and Pratt, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D2022-2659
Decided: February 14, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)