SERENITY TOLER
v.
SERIFE PRAY
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 appellate court reversed a trial court's permanent injunction against Toler because Toler was denied her due process right to cross-examine the petitioner, Pray. This denial occurred when the trial court allowed Pray to present other witnesses before Toler could cross-examine Pray.
Yes, the trial court erred by denying Toler the opportunity to cross-examine Pray before allowing Pray to present other witnesses. This violated Toler's due process rights.
[1] Due process at a hearing on a permanent stalking injunction requires that the opposing party be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner before the petitio…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction.”
Establishes the general right to a full hearing before an injunction is issued.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePray filed a petition for an injunction against Toler, alleging harassment and stalking. The trial court held a hearing for a permanent injunction. Bo…
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 Right To Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge. Serenity Toler appeals the trial court's Final Judgment for Protection Against Stalking entered in favor of Serife Pray. Because Toler was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Pray in violation of her due process rights, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On October 5, 2018, Pray filed a petition for an injunction against Toler pursuant to section 784.085, Florida Statutes (2018), alleging several instances of harassment and stalking. After granting a temporary injunction pursuant to section
- 2 - 784.0485(5)(a), the trial court held a hearing to determine whether a permanent injunction was warranted. At that hearing, both parties appeared pro se.
The trial court first heard from Pray via self-direct examination. Upon the conclusion of Pray's direct examination, the trial court asked if Pray had any other witnesses.
The trial court then allowed Pray to call her supervisor and move into direct examination without first affording Toler an opportunity to cross-examine Pray. Toler argues that the trial court erred in entering a permanent injunction against her without conducting an adequate evidentiary hearing in that it did not allow her to cross-examine Pray. Toler is correct. "Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction." David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625, 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)); see also § 784.0485(5)(a) ("If it appears to the court that stalking exists, the court may grant a temporary injunction ex parte, pending a full hearing . . . ."). "To satisfy due process requirements at an injunction hearing, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. This includes allowing relevant testimony of pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are present and cross-examination of the parties." David, 192 So. 3d at 627 (citation omitted) (quoting Furry, 68 So. 3d at 390).
Here, the trial court erred in allowing Pray to call other witnesses before affording Toler an opportunity to cross-examine Pray. As such, Toler's due process rights were violated, and we must reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fingers v. Angelicia Fingers (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…fe testified that in March 2021 Former Husband told 1 We also note that the trial court violated Former Husband's due process rights when it did not give him an opportunity to cross-examine Former Wife at the injunction hearing. See Toler v. Pray, 293 So. 3d 594, 595–96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holding that the trial court violated appellant's due process rights at the injunction hearing when it did not give the pro se appellant an opportunity to cross-examine appellee). ---PAGE 3--- Former Wife that he did no…
-
D.S. v. A.L.H. (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)