RICHARD FRANCIS MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL DEBEE MARTIN, 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.
Husband appeals final judgment dissolving his marriage, asserting he did not receive notice of the final hearing because the court sent the trial order to an incorrect address. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the record unclear on whether proper notice was provided and holding that a judgment entered without notice is void.
The trial court abused its discretion by entering a final judgment without establishing that the husband received notice of the trial date. A judgment entered without notice is void. The case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the appellant received notice of the hearing and then either reenter the judgment or grant a new final hearing.
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered without notice to a party is void.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by holding a final hearing and entering a final order of dissolution when a party has not received notice of the trial date.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to hold a final hearing and enter a final order of dissolution unless a party to the proceeding has notice of a trial date.”
Establishes the governing legal standard requiring notice for valid entry of dissolution judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Martin and Carol Debee Martin were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court sent the order setting the action for tria…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
The husband, Richard Martin, appeals from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant raises four issues on appeal, only one of which we find to have merit.
Appellant asserts that he did not receive notice of the final hearing and did not attend because the order setting the action for trial was sent by the court to an incorrect address. After the final hearing, the trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of the parties, distributing property and determining the appropriate amount of support to be paid by the husband. No transcript of this hearing was made. The record does, however, contain a Statement of the Evidence. The copy of the Statement of the Evidence contained in the record is not signed by the trial court, it makes no findings regarding adequate notice to the husband, and it does not reflect that any evidence was presented to show that the husband was aware of the date of the final hearing.1
It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to hold a final hearing and enter a final order of dissolution unless a party to the proceeding has notice of a trial date. Li v. Li 442 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). In Watson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the record reflected that the notice of the trial was sent to an incorrect address. In that case, the court stated that a judgment entered without notice was void.
Based upon the confusion in the state of the record before us, we reverse the final judgment and remand for the trial court to hold further proceedings as to whether the appellant received notice of the hearing. Based upon this determination, the trial court may reenter the appealed-from judgment or grant a new final hearing of dissolution. See Oberpriller v. Dellapa, 557 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . Although there is a Statement of Evidence attached to the appellee’s brief which indicates that the wife testified that the husband was aware that the final hearing was taking place, and that a notice of the hearing was sent to the husband's former attorney before the former at-tomey withdrew, there is no indication as to where this copy of Statement of the Evidence came from as it is not part of the record sent to this court. The copy appears to be a conformed copy signed by a representative of the trial judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cintron v. State, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Watson v. Watson, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Blankenship v. Myers, 442 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- LI v. Chi Hsi LI, 442 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Oberpriller v. Dellapa, 557 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)