ANTHONY JOSEPH JULIANO, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA KAY JULIANO, 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 abused its discretion by denying the former husband's request for a continuance and hearing testimony on a motion calendar without adequate notice.
The former wife noticed a settlement enforcement motion for the trial court's motion calendar and brought a witness. The former husband objected, stat…
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 Opportunity To Present Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
The former husband appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement in a marital dissolution. We reverse.
The former wife’s settlement enforcement motion was noticed for the trial court’s motion calendar, to which hearing the former wife brought a proposed witness. The former husband objected to testimony being taken at that time, advising the trial court that, if the former wife’s witness testified, then he would need to present testimony on his behalf, but that he had not brought his witness with him as he had not expected testimony to be presented. The trial court denied a continuance, heard the former wife’s testimony, and granted her motion.
While we believe that trial courts should have great discretion over their procedures, including the functioning of their motion calendars, we conclude thát the former husband’s request for a continuance should have been granted. It is expected that motion calendar hearings are for the purpose of resolving matters which require little time and are limited to arguments of counsel. While there is nothing to prevent the trial court from hearing testimony in uncontested matters, or by agreement of all involved, testimony in disputed matters comes as a surprise at motion calendar. Accordingly, to avoid sandbagging of parties, if the court is to allow testimony in disputed motion calendar hearings, specific notice of such intention must be given, with a sufficient interval to prepare and adequate opportunity to present contrary testimony prior to ruling.
The former wife’s cross-appeal is rendered moot by our returning this matter for a new hearing on the motion. However, we do note that the former wife’s contention that there was no evidence supporting the “good will sentimental value” of the corporate stock appears to have merit. We do not know, of course, what evidence will be presented at the new hearing.
Reversed and remanded for a new hearing on the former wife’s settlement enforcement motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Licea v. Anllo, 691 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…g the posting of a bond and remand with instructions to the trial court to hold the required evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded. . Motion calendars are not generally the appropriate time for evidentiary hearings. See Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
-
Herranz v. Siam, 2 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…be false at the time the pleading was made.”). As testimony must be taken, notice of the required evidentiary hearing must be provided to the parties in order to avoid surprise and ensure due process. As this Court explained in Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997): It is expected that motion calendar hearings are for the purpose of resolving matters which require little time and are limited to arguments of counsel. While there is nothing to prevent the trial court from hearing testimony in…
-
BMS OF Broward, Inc. v. Carter, 702 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…date when it could present its witnesses, the attendance of whom BMS had not secured for the motion calendar hearing. The court denied the request, heard the motion without the presentation of BMS’ testimony, and granted it. In Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA1997) we observed: “It is expected that motion calendar hearings are for the purpose of resolving matters which require little time and are limited to arguments of counsel. While there is nothing to prevent the trial court from he…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence