Imagine filing a petition asking a judge to revisit your child support. You lay out what has changed. You wait. Months pass. And then an order arrives denying your petition, roughly a paragraph long, telling you that you failed to prove your case. You were never given a hearing. You never testified. You never handed the judge a single document.
That is what happened to Monique Maybell, and in January 2026 Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal said it was wrong. This decision carries particular weight for anyone working with a Tampa divorce lawyer, because the Second District is the appellate court that governs Hillsborough County. This is not persuasive authority from another part of the state. It is binding law in Tampa courtrooms.
The holding is simple and reassuring: you cannot be told you failed to prove something when you were never given the chance to prove it. If you are dealing with a support modification, an enforcement action, or any post-judgment dispute in the Tampa Bay area, this case is worth understanding.
The Case in Plain English: Maybell v. Bryant
Maybell v. Bryant, Case No. 2D2025-0917, was decided by the Second District Court of Appeal on January 16, 2026. Judge Sleet wrote the opinion, with Judges Kelly and Morris concurring. Monique Maybell represented herself. Michael Bryant, Sr. did not file anything in the appeal at all.
The background stretches back nearly two decades, and the timeline itself is instructive.
According to the opinion, the child support case began in DeSoto County in 2008. A 2010 order noted that a support obligation was already in place, found the father roughly $10,000 behind, and directed him to keep paying both current support and arrears. A contempt order followed in DeSoto County in 2011, finding he had not paid and putting the arrears around $13,000. A second contempt order came in 2016, by which point the stated arrears had grown to $43,676.
The parties divorced in Hillsborough County in 2017. They had three children, though by the time of this dispute only the youngest was still a minor. The Hillsborough final judgment did not set up a new support structure. It said that child support would remain in effect pursuant to the DeSoto County order.
That single sentence is where much of the later confusion originates, and we will return to it.
In November 2024, the mother filed a motion for civil contempt and enforcement in DeSoto County, using the old 2008 case number, alleging unpaid arrears of $38,091.10. On the same day, she filed a motion to transfer the case to Hillsborough County. She asked for a hearing. One was set and then canceled.
Days later she filed her petition to modify child support. She alleged that the father had gained substantial income, that he had transferred property into his current wife’s name to keep it from counting toward his ability to pay, and that he was roughly $38,000 in arrears.
The father responded with a letter. He said the child had been living with him for the previous four years, that he was paying arrears through an income deduction order, and that real property he had inherited should not be counted for support purposes.
Then things stalled. In December 2024 the trial court entered a Notice of No Action, saying it would take no action because the claims had not been filed in the appropriate manner. The appellate court pointed out in a footnote that this notice did not dismiss the case and was not an appealable order, which left the mother in a procedural limbo. She filed another motion in January 2025 arguing venue belonged in Hillsborough County and that the no-action notice violated her due process rights. The court did not rule on it. In March 2025 she filed a request for a ruling, noting that her only remaining option seemed to be a petition for writ of mandamus asking the appellate court to compel the trial judge to act.
The order eventually entered was short. It stated that a modification petition requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances, that there was no information in the petition proving one, that the Department of Revenue had previously held hearings and established the support amount, and that the father continued to pay each month. Petition denied.
An important note before going further. Nearly everything above consists of allegations by one side or the other. The appellate court made no findings about whether the father hid assets, whether his income rose, whether the child lived with him, or how much is actually owed. Those questions remain open.
What the Second District Decided and Why It Matters
The appellate court reversed and sent the case back. Several threads in its reasoning are worth pulling apart.
Alleging Something Is Not the Same as Proving It
The trial court denied the petition because nothing in the petition proved a substantial change in circumstances. That framing contains the central mistake.
A petition is a pleading. Its job is to allege facts that, if true, would entitle you to relief. Proof happens later, at a hearing, through testimony and documents. Asking a petition to prove anything sets a standard no petition could ever meet.
Florida law is settled that a court must find a substantial change in circumstances before modifying child support, as the First District stated in Smith v. Smith, 273 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). The appellate court also pointed to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005), which drew on a 1933 case for the principle that modification requires a factual basis showing conditions have materially changed since the prior order.
Notice the word doing the work in both: factual. Whether circumstances have substantially changed is a question of fact. Questions of fact get resolved by taking evidence, not by reading a petition and forming an impression.
Findings Made Without Evidence Receive No Deference
Appellate courts normally give considerable respect to a trial judge’s factual findings, because the trial judge watched the witnesses and reviewed the exhibits. That deference has a precondition. It assumes there was evidence.
The trial court here made two findings: that the mother had not proven a substantial change, and that the father continued to make monthly payments. The Second District held that neither was supported by competent substantial evidence, because no evidentiary hearing was ever held. It cited its own recent decision in Landero v. Landero, 391 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), which built on Lennon v. Lennon, 264 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), for the requirement that a child support decision rest on competent substantial evidence and on findings detailed enough to let an appellate court understand how the judge reached the result.
Because there was no evidence underlying the findings, the appellate court owed them no deference.
There is a related point about the reference to the Department of Revenue. The trial court reasoned in part that DOR had already held hearings and set the support amount. A prior administrative determination does not answer whether circumstances have changed since then. That is the entire question a modification petition raises.
Denying a Petition Without a Hearing Violates Due Process
The court went further and held that failing to hold an evidentiary hearing violated the mother’s due process rights.
Due process in this setting means something concrete: notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court cited Sawaya v. Thompson, 204 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), where a trial court violated a party’s due process rights by denying her the opportunity to present evidence of a substantial change that might have justified modification. It also cited Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which confirmed that due process principles apply to modification proceedings and reversed a summary denial of a time-sharing modification petition on that basis.
This principle protects both sides equally. A parent asked to pay more is entitled to a hearing before that happens. A parent seeking an increase is entitled to a hearing before being turned away.
Motions Left Unruled and a Venue Tangle
The appellate court also observed that the trial court never ruled on several properly filed motions, including the contempt motion and the motion to transfer venue. It gave specific instructions for remand: rule on the change of venue first, then hold an evidentiary hearing on the contempt and modification motions if needed.
That sequencing makes practical sense. Deciding which court should hear the case before spending a day taking testimony avoids doing the work twice.
The venue problem traces directly back to the 2017 divorce judgment. Support had been running out of DeSoto County since 2008. The Hillsborough judgment left it there by reference rather than establishing a fresh, self-contained obligation. Seven years later, the mother was left filing enforcement papers under a sixteen-year-old case number in a county two hours away while simultaneously asking to move everything to the county where she got divorced.
The Child Turning Eighteen Did Not End the Case
A footnote addresses something many parents assume incorrectly. The record contained conflicting information about the youngest child’s date of birth, listed as November 2007 in some documents and November 2006 in others, and the father asserted the child was already eighteen in late 2024.
The appellate court held that the appeal was not moot regardless, because modification of child support can be ordered retroactive to the date the modification petition was filed, citing Gurdian v. Gurdian, 198 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). It directed the trial court to sort out the birth date discrepancy at the hearing.
The takeaway for parents: a child reaching majority does not automatically wipe out a pending modification request or accumulated arrears.
Why This Ruling Carries Extra Weight in Hillsborough County
In previous posts we have discussed decisions from other Florida appellate districts, where the analysis has to account for the fact that a ruling from the panhandle or the Orlando area is only persuasive in Tampa.
That caveat does not apply here. The Second District Court of Appeal is the appellate court for Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, and surrounding counties. Its decisions bind Tampa family law judges. And the underlying divorce in this case was itself a Hillsborough County divorce.
If a Tampa judge denies your modification petition without an evidentiary hearing, Maybell is directly on point.
Practical Takeaways for Florida Parents and Divorcing Spouses
1. File Promptly, Because Retroactivity Runs From the Filing Date
Florida generally allows modification to reach back to the date the petition was filed, not to the date your circumstances actually changed. The gap between those two dates is money you cannot recover.
If your co-parent’s income has risen substantially, if the parenting schedule has shifted meaningfully, if your own income has dropped, or if a child’s needs have changed, the time to file is when you recognize it. Waiting a year to see whether things stabilize can quietly cost you a year of adjusted support.
2. Plead With Specificity, Then Be Ready to Prove It
Understanding that a petition alleges rather than proves does not mean allegations should be thin. A well-drafted child support modification petition identifies what changed, when it changed, and why it is substantial, material, and not something already contemplated when the last order was entered.
Then build the evidence to match. That usually means financial affidavits, tax returns, pay records, bank statements, and where a party’s income is not transparent, formal discovery. The allegation about assets being moved into a current spouse’s name is a good example. That is a serious claim, and proving it requires documentation, not assertion.
3. Ask for an Evidentiary Hearing in Writing, and Follow Up
The mother in this case requested a hearing, and one was set and then canceled. What followed was months of silence and a no-action notice.
Put your hearing request in writing. Follow up with the judicial assistant. Keep a record of every attempt. If a hearing gets canceled, immediately move to have it reset. A documented paper trail is what makes an appellate argument possible later, and more importantly, it is often what actually gets the hearing on the calendar.
4. Pay Close Attention to How Your Final Judgment Handles Support
This is a drafting lesson with a seven-year fuse. Incorporating a prior order from another county by reference can seem efficient at the time. Years later, it can leave you unsure where to file, operating under an old case number, and litigating venue before anyone reaches the merits.
When your final judgment is being prepared, ask your Florida divorce attorney how support will be documented, which court retains jurisdiction, and what you will need to do if you ever want to enforce or modify it. A few extra sentences in the judgment can save considerable expense later.
5. Arrears Do Not Quietly Disappear
The arrears figures in this case moved from about $10,000 in 2010 to $13,000 in 2011 to $43,676 in 2016. Child support arrears in Florida do not simply age out. They are enforceable through a range of mechanisms, including income deduction, and unpaid support generally is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
For the parent owed support, that means old arrears may still be collectible. For the parent who owes, it means an unaddressed balance tends to grow rather than fade, which is a strong argument for seeking modification early if you cannot afford your current obligation.
6. A Department of Revenue Case Is Not the Same as a Court Case
Many Florida families interact with DOR for establishment and enforcement of support. DOR proceedings serve a real function, but they operate differently from circuit court litigation, and a prior DOR determination does not resolve whether circumstances have changed since. If you are unsure which forum your matter belongs in, that is a sensible question to raise with a Tampa family law attorney early.
7. When a Court Will Not Rule, There Are Options
The situation this mother faced, a case sitting motionless with no appealable order, is genuinely difficult. She identified the correct tool herself: a petition for writ of mandamus, which asks an appellate court to direct a lower court to perform a required act.
Mandamus is not a way to complain about a ruling you dislike. It addresses a failure to rule at all. It is a specialized filing, and it is one reason that a case which seems stuck is worth bringing to an attorney rather than continuing to file requests alone.
8. Do Not Read This as a Guarantee of Victory
The mother won her appeal. She did not win her case. On remand the trial court will decide venue and, if appropriate, take evidence on contempt and modification. She may prevail. She may not. What she obtained was the hearing she was entitled to from the beginning.
That distinction matters for setting expectations. Winning the right process is valuable, and it is not the same as winning the outcome.
Talk to a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group
What stands out about this case is how long it took to correct a problem that a single hearing would have resolved. A petition filed in November 2024 produced an appellate reversal in January 2026, and the underlying questions still have not been answered.
Post-judgment matters deserve the same care as the divorce itself. Where you file, how your petition is drafted, whether you have the financial evidence assembled, and whether you press for a hearing all shape what happens next. So does the language in your original final judgment, sometimes years after anyone thought about it.
At The McKinney Law Group, we handle divorce, child support, time-sharing, and post-judgment modification matters for families across the Tampa Bay area. We focus on the details that determine outcomes: getting your case in front of the right court, building an evidentiary record, and drafting judgments that will still make sense a decade from now.
If your circumstances have changed, if you are owed support that is not being paid, or if you have received an order you do not understand, speaking with a Tampa divorce lawyer is a practical next step. Most people find that a single conversation replaces a great deal of uncertainty.
Contact The McKinney Law Group today to schedule a confidential consultation with a Tampa divorce lawyer. We will listen, explain where you stand in plain language, and help you decide how to move forward.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I entitled to a hearing on my child support modification petition?
Under Maybell v. Bryant, a Florida court generally cannot deny a modification petition summarily, without giving you the opportunity to present evidence. Whether circumstances have substantially changed is a factual question, and resolving it requires an evidentiary hearing. Denying that opportunity can violate your due process rights.
What counts as a substantial change in circumstances?
Florida courts generally look for a change that is substantial, material, and not anticipated when the existing order was entered. Common examples include a significant involuntary change in either parent’s income, a meaningful change in the time-sharing schedule, or a change in the child’s needs. Each case turns on its own facts.
How far back can modified child support go?
Modification can generally be ordered retroactive to the date the modification petition was filed. This is why filing promptly matters so much. The period between when your circumstances changed and when you filed is typically not recoverable.
Does my child turning 18 end everything?
Not necessarily. As this case illustrates, a pending modification petition is not automatically moot when a child reaches majority, because relief can reach back to the filing date. Existing arrears also remain owed and enforceable.
My ex says property he inherited should not count toward child support. Is that right?
Inherited property occupies a different position than marital asset division in a divorce, but income generated by assets can be relevant to support calculations, and courts examine a parent’s overall financial ability. The answer depends heavily on the specific assets and income involved, which is exactly the kind of issue an evidentiary hearing exists to resolve.
What if my ex is hiding income or moving assets into a new spouse’s name?
Allegations like this are taken seriously but must be proven. That typically requires formal discovery, financial records, and sometimes a forensic accountant. Bring your suspicions and any documentation to a Florida divorce attorney rather than relying on the allegation alone.
What can I do if the judge simply will not rule on my motion?
A petition for writ of mandamus asks an appellate court to compel a lower court to act. It applies to a failure to rule rather than to a ruling you disagree with. Before reaching that point, confirm your motions were properly filed and served and that hearing time has been requested through the correct channel.
Does a Second District decision apply to my Hillsborough County case?
Yes. The Second District Court of Appeal is the reviewing court for Hillsborough County and much of the Tampa Bay region, so its decisions bind local trial judges. That makes this ruling directly applicable to a Hillsborough County divorce or post-judgment matter.
The appellant here represented herself and won. Do I need a lawyer?
You may represent yourself in Florida family court. That said, this appeal followed more than a year of procedural difficulty, an unruled motion, a no-action notice, and a venue problem rooted in a judgment entered years earlier. Much of that was avoidable. A Tampa divorce lawyer is generally most valuable before those problems take hold.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.