WILLIAM ANECHIARICO, APPELLANT,
v.
ALICE MARIE THOMPSON, 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 by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on remand and by dismissing the complaint without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and a hearing before dismissing a case on remand, especially when the appellate court has directed specific issues to be considered.
[2] A trial court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on remand may contribute to a lack of evidence regarding jurisdictional issues.
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 intelligenceFollowing a prior remand with specific directions, the trial court granted the appellant's motion to amend but then dismissed the complaint for lack o…
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
In Anechiarico v. Thompson, 573 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), this court reversed and remanded this case to the trial court with explicit direction to consider:
(1) the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint; (2) the effect of his incarceration upon his entitlement to relief; (3) any further jurisdictional issues; and (4) if jurisdiction lies, the best interests of the child.
Id. at 453-54. In response to this court’s opinion, the trial court, without notice and without a hearing, granted appellant’s motion to amend his complaint and then dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the trial court made the following comments:
There is no evidence that Florida was the home state of the child at the commencement of this proceeding or that Florida had been the child’s home state within six months of the commencement of this proceeding and was removed by a person claiming custody....
Further, the Plaintiff provides no proof that he is the natural father of the child.
Even if jurisdiction did lie, and even if Petitioner is the natural father of the child, the Court would deny the petition in the best interests of the child because the Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Glades Correctional Institute.
We reverse. Appellant has alleged sufficient facts, if proved, to establish subject matter jurisdiction under section 61.-1308(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court’s failure, on remand, to conduct an evidentiary hearing may explain the absence of evidence on the jurisdictional issue. We also note that when afforded a hearing, appellant’s evidence may be sufficient to support his claim for the relief that he requests. See Jones v. Adams, 530 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We therefore remand this cause to the trial court with directions to grant appellant an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence on those matters enumerated in this court’s previous opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Terence William Morey, 530 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Morgan Jameson v. State, 573 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Anechiarico v. Thompson, 573 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)