KEEGAN LEE,
v.
KIERSTIN MATSUDA,
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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's summary denial of a motion to vacate or modify a permanent stalking injunction, holding that due process requires a meaningful hearing before denying such a motion, regardless of the motion's merits.
A trial court may not summarily deny a motion to vacate or modify an injunction without a hearing, as due process requires that the movant be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on such a motion.
[1] Due process requires a trial court to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a motion to vacate, modify, or dissolve an injunction.
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion to vacate or modify an injunction without a hearing violates due process rights.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard”
Establishes the core holding that procedural due process protections apply to injunction modification motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 2018, the circuit court entered a final judgment of permanent injunction for protection against stalking against the appellant. In January 2…
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 Meaningful Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDON, J.
In August, 2018, the circuit court entered a final judgment of permanent injunction for protection against stalking against the appellant.
In January 2020, the appellant moved to vacate, modify, or dissolve the injunction; he alleged changed circumstances and contended that the injunction had served its purpose.
The circuit court summarily denied the motion without a hearing and without providing reasons for denying the motion.
We reverse and remand for a hearing on appellant's motion, to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Lotridge v. Lobasso, 101 So. 3d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for a hearing on appellant’s motion, where he shall have “a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”); Barfield v. Kay, 140 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (summary denial of a motion to vacate or modify an injunction without a hearing is a violation of respondent’s due process rights); McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard”); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that as appellant's motion was legally sufficient, the trial court should have afforded appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard rather than summarily denying his motion); Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Due process requires that [the movant] be given [an] opportunity to be heard on his request and that his motion should not be summarily
disposed of . . . .” ).
We express no opinion on the merits of the motion to dissolve or modify the injunction.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- McCORMICK v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Barfield v. Ranee KAY, 140 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Lotridge v. Lobasso, 101 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)