MARGARET LEE BROUSSARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN MICHAEL BROUSSARD, 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 court held that the trial court erred by holding a final hearing with less than thirty days notice to the appellant.
The husband filed for dissolution of marriage, and the wife, a resident of Tallahassee, received notice for a final hearing in Tampa scheduled for the…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant/wife contends that the trial court erred by holding a final hearing of which the appellant had received less than thirty days notice. We agree and reverse.
The appellee/husband filed for a dissolution of marriage in Hillsborough County, Florida. The appellant, a resident of Tallahassee, Florida, filed a motion for change of venue which was denied. The record does not contain an answer, a default or a notice of trial.
On July 30, 1986, at approximately 8:30 a.m., the appellant received, in Tallahassee, a notice scheduling a final hearing in Tampa on July 31,1986 at 4:00 p.m. The notice was certified by appellee’s trial counsel as being mailed on July 16, 1986, but was postmarked July 24, 1986.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c) provides:
(c) Setting for Trial. If the court finds the action ready to be set for trial, it shall enter an order fixing a date for trial. Trial shall be set not less than 30 days from the service of the notice specified in subdivision (b). By giving the same notice the court may set an action for trial. In actions in which the damages are not liquidated, the order setting an action for trial shall be served on parties who are in default in accordance with Rule 1.080(a).
There is no question that the above rule was not complied with. This case was not properly noticed for trial nor did the court enter an order setting the trial date. The approximately thirty-three hours notice re ceived by the appellant falls far short of that required by the rule. See Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Heritage Casket and Vault Ind., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We conclude that the trial court erred in proceeding with the final hearing and entering the final judgment.
The final judgment entered is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…pellate courts of this state have emphasized that the rule’s specifications are mandatory and they have admonished trial courts to strictly adhere to them. Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 [*130] So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Broussard v. Broussard, 506 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Anderson, 90 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (table decision) (text of order available at 2012 WL 2428282); Tucker v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, — So. 3d-, 2014 WL 1491630, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D789 (Fla. 3d DCA…
-
Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 is required and failure to do so is reversible error. Ramos v. Menks, 509 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Broussard v. Broussard, 506 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We have stated before that a party has a due process entitlement to notice and an opportunity to be heard on unliquidated damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. Bowman v. Kingsland Development, Inc., 432 So. 2…
-
Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Constr., Inc., 964 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 is required and failure to do so is reversible error. Ramos v. Menks, 509 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see aiso Broussard v. Broussard, 506 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We have stated before that a party has a due process entitlement to notice and an opportunity to be heard on unliquidated damages pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. Bowman v. Kingsland Development, Inc., 432 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rodger H. Bennett v. Cont'l Chems., Inc., 492 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Heritage Casket & Vault IND., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)