medical, dental, optical, orthodontic and prescription expenses not covered by any insurances.” Clark argues that this award was improper because such relief was not requested by the former husband in the pleading. We disagree. It is settled that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation absent a pleading or motion requesting such modification. Torres v. Torres, 739 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) The former husband’s petition for modification sought primary residential responsibility, abatement of his child support obligation, and a requirement “that both parties should pay child support in accordance with the Florida Child Support Guidelines”. This pleading was sufficient to put Clark on notice. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 712 So.2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>). Medical, dental, optical, orthodontic, and
holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted holding that the pleading function of a petition for modification is to reasonably inform the other side of what is to be established in support of the petition so that the opponent has a fair opportunity to defend and prepare a case holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification because the childs increased need for support and the former husbands ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wifes petition for modification was filed holding that an appeal denying a petition for what was essentially a petition for a new trial to reopen the criminal process was not separately appealable