ROBERT SIMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ARLENE SIMPSON, 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 final judgment of dissolution of marriage must be reversed because the appellant did not receive proper notice of the final hearing.
The notice of hearing was filed on July 8, scheduling the hearing for July 15. This notice failed to comply with the 30-day requirement mandated by Fl…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse a final judgment of dissolution of marriage because Appellant failed to receive proper notice of the final hearing. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c) states, “Trial shall be set not less than 30 days from the service of the notice for trial.” 1 See Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 670 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); S.W.T. v. C.A.P. and T.W.T, 595 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court’s failure to comply with mandatory language of 1.440(c), requiring trials not to be set less than 30 days from notice for trial, required reversal of declaratory judgment terminating husband’s parental rights).
This rule has been held mandatory and applicable to final hearings as well as to jury trials. See Colson v. Scroggins, 606 So. 2d 472, 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In the instant case, the notice of hearing was filed July 8, noticing a hearing to be held on July 15. This notice clearly failed to comply with the 30 day requirement of rule 1.440(e).
STONE, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. . In 1995, the Family Law Rules of Procedure adopted rule 12.440, which states that, "Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 shall govern general provisions concerning setting an action for trial in family law matters-” The rule then sets forth several exceptions and additions which are not relevant here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alfonso v. Alfonso, 823 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…argues that he received only four-days notice prior to trial. Rule 1.440(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, states in part that a court shall set an action no less than thirty days from the service of the notice for trial. See Simpson v. Simpson, 700 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c) shall govern general provisions concerning setting an action for trial in family law matters”). In this case, Ralph claims he received service of notice scheduling the final…
-
Lalonde v. Lalonde, 177 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM., We reverse the January 14, 2015 partial final judgment, as the trial court failed to give the appellant notice thirty days in advance of the final hearing. See Simpson v. Simpson, 700 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that rule requiring thirty days’ notice “is mandatory and applicable to final hearings as well as to jury trials”). We affirm as to all of the other arguments raised in appellant’s initial brief. The case is remanded for…
Authorities Cited
- Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Tr. Co., 670 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- S.W.T. v. C.A.P. and T.W.T., 595 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Colson v. Scroggins, 606 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)