JACK MALZAHN, APPELLANT,
v.
LILLIAM MALZAHN, 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 in refusing to permit an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's motion to vacate a temporary support order.
Appellant was served dissolution papers on the same day as a temporary support hearing, preventing him from securing counsel and preparing. The trial …
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 Temporary Support Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the appellant’s motion to vacate. After securing a temporary restraining order on November 18, 1988, without notice to the appellant, the appellee scheduled a hearing on temporary support for November 22, 1988. Appellant was served dissolution suit papers on the same day, November 22, 1988, and, according to a subsequently filed motion to vacate was unable to secure the services of an attorney, prepare for, and attend the hearing because of the lack of notice.
The trial court entered an order granting temporary relief and, when the appellant filed a motion to vacate the order because of lack of reasonable notice and because the amounts of support ordered were grossly excessive, the trial court refused to permit an evidentiary hearing. We believe this was error. The appellant was entitled to reasonable notice of the hearing on temporary support. See Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1970); Hayman v. Hayman, 522 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla 4th DCA 1984); and Devoe and Raynolds Co. v. KDS Paint Co., 382 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard are at the heart of the due process required by our system of justice. There are no allegations of irreparable harm or emergency set out in the appel-lee’s request for temporary relief that justify denying appellant reasonable notice.
We stop short of directing that the order of temporary support be vacated. However, we remand this cause with directions that appellant be given the opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate so that he will have a fair opportunity to contest the provisions of the temporary support order and demonstrate the prejudice suffered by lack of reasonable notice.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…stitute an evidentiary hearing. Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to “have a fair opportunity to contest” the factual issues, this purnose is not effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify. See Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So. 2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Furthermore, it is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled. Southeast Mortgage Co. v. Andrews, 561 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Thus, by denying the Sperdutes’ r…
-
Joelle Sawaya v. Thompson, 204 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…dentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues .... [I]t is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So. 2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). Second, Appellant also merited an evidentiary hearing on her Motion to Enjoin. In the motion, Appellant argued that Appellee filed sham pleadings, and should be estopped from filing more. A sham pleading is one that is “…
Authorities Cited
- Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1970)
- Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Devoe & Raynolds Co., Inc. v. KDS Paint Co., Inc., 382 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Hayman v. Hayman, 522 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)