RULA I. ABUROUMI
v.
JAIME ESPINOSA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by express or implied consent of the parties, the trial court has authority to decide it and must treat it as if it had been raised in the pleadings.
[1] When an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by express or implied consent of the parties, the trial court has authority to decide the issue and must treat it as if…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.”
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b), cited by the court to support its holding
Appellant Rula I. Aburoumi appealed a final judgment in a family law matter involving child support. The trial court declined to consider the issue of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RULA I. ABUROUMI,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-3032
JAIME ESPINOSA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November 6, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge.
Carlton Pierce, of Carlton Pierce, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
Michele A. Lebron, of Lebron Law, PLLC, Kissimmee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment with one exception. Appellant correctly argues that the issue of retroactive child support was tried by consent, and the trial court therefore erred when it concluded it was without authority to consider the issue.1 See, e.g., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b) (“When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied
We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of retroactive child support and remand for consideration of that issue. We otherwise affirm. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.