EPIC METALS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMARI LAKE EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the main judgment, finding Epic Metals Corporation’s claims of error non-meritorious. As to the cross-appeal of Samari Lake East Condominium Association, Inc. claiming that setoffs were improperly granted, we agree. The trial court improperly entered an order which summarily determined Epic’s entitlement to a setoff. Neither a motion nor notice of hearing to determine entitlement to the set-off was made. A trial court violates a litigant’s due process rights when it expands the scope of a hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957, 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed. The trial court’s order determining Epic’s entitlement to a setoff is vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court, which shall take testimony and rule on the setoff issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Pro-Art Dental LAB, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008)…rocess rights.” Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (emphasis supplied) (quoting In re Estate of Hatcher, 439 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)) (citing Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Robinson v. Malik, 135 So. 2d 445, 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)). Pro-Art is thus correct that the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment action that V-Strategic specifically sought through its…
-
Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…gs, evidence or argument on the motion for summary judgment”). [*29] To allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party’s due process rights. See Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(“[a] trial court violates a litigant’s due process rights when it expands the scope of a hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing”); Robinson v. Malik, 135 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 8d DCA 1961)(a final judgmen…
-
Connell v. Cap. City P'rs, LLC, 932 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…th DCA 2005); Grandini v. Carizo, 891 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Fouts v. Bowling, 596 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Devaney v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 564 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). As noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, “the meaning of procedural due process is clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are to be heard; and in order t…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)