ELSA G. LEON, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD PAUL LEON, AND E.L. FOODS, INC., A WASHINGTON, D.C., CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 a temporary support order cannot be entered by incorporating a prior order from a dismissed action without a new hearing.
The trial court entered an order for temporary support and denied a temporary injunction by incorporating orders from a previously dismissed action, w…
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 Dissolution Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order awarding temporary support in a dissolution action. The trial court entered an order which simply incorporated the order of support entered in a previously dismissed dissolution action between the parties. This order was entered without taking evidence of any sort on the issues. Apparently the motions for temporary alimony and child support were among six or seven motions set for a hearing before the court. The court ran out of time, and these motions were not heard. Nevertheless, the trial court disposed of them based upon the prior order entered in the earlier case.
While the entry of a temporary support award without the parties having a full opportunity to be heard may not be error so long as (1) there is an immediate need for support tantamount to an emergency; (2) the temporary award is not per se unreasonable; and (3) the trial judge sets another hearing at a later date to finish testimony, see Priestes v. Priestes, 549 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA1989), none of those criteria are present in this order. Here, the wife was denied any opportunity to present her motion by a time allotment. This is error. Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA1982).
For the same reason, we reverse the order denying temporary injunction as to dissipation of assets. The wife’s affidavit made out a preliminary showing, see Good-ing v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA1992), but the hearing time limit allowed neither party an opportunity to present evidence on the issue.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. We affirm as to attorney’s fees and costs as those motions were heard fully by the trial court and we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leon v. Leon, 652 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…al appeal was pending before this court. Connor Realty Inc. v. Ocean Terrace North Condo. Ass’n, 572 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f). Additionally, the trial court failed to comply with the opinion of this court in Leon v. Leon, 616 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court should conduct the mandated hearing and make findings as to the issues set forth in that opinion. We also reverse as to the issues of alimony and support. It was an abuse of discretion to award the wi…
-
Fuchs v. Fuchs, 840 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…, go well beyond those contained in the notice and therefore we agree that the wife’s due process rights were violated. Last, we find the wife’s argument that the order is not supported by evidence in the record persuasive as well. In Leon v. Leon, 616 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), this court noted that “the entry of a temporary support award without the parties having a full opportunity to be heard may not be error so long as (1) there is an immediate need for support tantamount to an emergency; (2) the t…
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Shields v. State, 549 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)