JIM DEVANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SOLITRON DEVICES, INC., 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 trial court erred in determining jurisdiction over a third-party defendant at a hearing noticed only for discovery motions, violating due process.
The trial court held a hearing on motions to compel discovery and expanded its scope to include a jurisdictional question concerning a third-party def…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Jim Devaney (Devaney) appeals an order of the trial court which determined that the court had jurisdiction over the person of Devaney as a third party defendant. We reverse.
In the instant case, the trial court erred in determining the jurisdictional question at a hearing that was only noticed for motions to compel discovery. When the trial court held the hearing on the motions to compel and expanded the scope of hearing to include the jurisdiction question, De-vaney had an outstanding motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which was scheduled to be heard at a future date.
We conclude that the trial court violated Devaney’s due process rights when it expanded the scope of the hearing to address and determine the jurisdictional matter not noticed for hearing. Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condominium Association, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Furthermore, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(d), the appellant had a right to notice and a hearing on his Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person. According to the United States Supreme Court, the meaning of procedural due process is clear: “Parties whose rights are to be affected are to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1994, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, 569 (1972). Because the court order rendered that issue moot, the appellant was denied a full and fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence relating to jurisdiction over his person.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connell v. Cap. City P'rs, LLC, 932 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…iced for hearing, violates due process. Khan v. Dep’t of Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992, 992 (Fla. 4th 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 du…
-
Hully v. Hully, 653 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…as he required to be prepared, to argue against the default. Levitt, 454 So. 2d at 1071. See also Middleton v. Middleton, 603 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), appeal after remand, 623 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Devaney v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 564 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cardet; Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Additionally, once the wife withdrew her notices of hearing on her motion for default, the husband was entitled to rely on the reasonable expectation that he would…
-
CASA Linda Tile & Marble Installers, Inc. v. Highlands Place 1981, Ltd., 642 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…order substituting Casa Linda The and Marble Distributors, Inc., as plaintiff/coun-terdefendant, as the record reflects a lack of notice of the issue to be considered at the hearing in which it was substituted. See Devaney v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 564 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We recognize that at least part of the confusion as to the scope of the issues to be resolved at that hearing was the result of ambiguously worded orders of this court entered on cross motions to relinquish jurisdiction. On rem…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972)
- Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake E. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)