JOAN ADKINS FICKLE, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON R. ADKINS, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court's order was reversed because it violated parties' due process rights by deciding matters not noticed for hearing and by failing to provide a full opportunity to be heard.
The trial court entered an order disposing of all pending matters. Parties sought reversal of this order, arguing it was entered without proper notice…
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 Charging Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse in its entirety the trial court’s Order Disposing of All Pending Matters entered on October 23,1979, upon a holding that this order was entered in derogation of the due process rights of the parties1 in that (1) it determined matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings, Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); (2) to the limited extent that it determined matters noticed for hearing and properly before the court, it was entered without providing the parties a full and fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence, Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reject Adkins’ contention that the trial court’s order was agreed to by Fickle, since we will not imply such an agreement from a party’s silence in response to a court’s suggestion or, a fortiori, a party’s acquiescence to the court’s portent.2 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Payne, 358 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1978); Walter E. Heller & Company, Southeast v. Pointe Sanibel Development Corporation, 392 So. 2d 306 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Arnold v. Arnold, 292 So. 2d 384 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
Reversed and remanded.
. All parties to this appeal seek reversal of this order in whole or in part. The law firm of Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath is a party to this appeal. See Fickle v. Adkins, 385 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The firm received no notice of the hearing at all. It was entitled to notice because at the time of the hearing, a charging lien, previously ordered in favor of the discharged firm, remained unchallenged.
. The court told Mrs. Fickle: “If you fool around like that I am going to have a custody issue here. You don’t want that to happen. I am trying to tell you something.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Mizrahi v. Noemi Mizrahi, 867 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…t was not before the court, the trial court violated the father’s right to due process. Due process protections prevent a trial court from- deciding matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings. See Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In the case before us, the father requested a hearing on his motion to hold the mother in contempt for violating the trial court’s travel restriction order which prohibited travel outside the country by the parties’ children with…
-
Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…950); Quay Development, Inc. v. Elegante Building Corporation, 392 So. 2d 901, 903 (Fla.1981). Thus, the general rule is that a court cannot determine “matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings.” Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Connolly v. Connolly, 448 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (error to award alimony, child support, de facto child custody, and to determine visitation rights where there was no prayer, or other predicate requesti…
-
E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co. v. Lambert, 654 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…oncerning the Sunshine Act litigation would not be encompassed in the underlying suit. The trial court’s summary resolution of the Sunshine Act issues without giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence was error. Riehl; Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issues involved with the Sunshine in Litigation Act, including the constitutionality of the statute. FRANK, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. & John H. Payne v. Payne, 358 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1978)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 292 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Weaver v. Masanotti, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fickle v. Adkins, 385 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Vetterick v. Sears, 392 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Pointe Sanibel Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Sykes v. Louie L. Wainwright, 354 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)