BARBARA BUTTS, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIAN HEGMANN, 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.
In a family law matter involving unmarried parents, the Florida appellate court reversed an order granting a father permanent sole custody of the minor child, finding that the mother did not receive adequate notice that a custody determination would be made at the hearing.
The court held that the notice of hearing was insufficient because it did not reasonably apprise the mother that the hearing would result in a permanent custody determination, violating the due process standard for notice required in proceedings that produce a final result.
[1] A court order setting a hearing must provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and af…
[2] A hearing notice that does not specify that a permanent custody determination will be made does not provide adequate notice for such a decision.
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 intelligence“The notice required for any proceeding which may produce a final result is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
Establishes the constitutional standard for adequate notice in proceedings with final results.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButts and Hegmann, who were never married, equally split custody of their minor son pursuant to a March 1995 court order. In July 1997, Hegmann filed …
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 Petition For Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Appellant/mother, Barbara Butts, appeals an order that granted the appellee/father Brian Hegmann’s emergency petition for custody and gave him permanent sole custody and parental responsibility of the parties’ minor son. Butts argues that the order setting the hearing on this petition was insufficient to provide her with notice that permanent custody would be decided. We agree and reverse.
Butts and Hegmann, who were never married, equally split custody of their minor son pursuant to a March, 1995 court order. In July, 1997, Hegmann filed an emergency petition for determination of paternity, custody and child support, in which he sought permanent custody of the child. He also filed a verified ex-parte motion for temporary injunction to thwart Butts’ alleged threats that she would leave the jurisdiction with the minor child. The court entered an order granting the ex-parte temporary injunction, as well as setting a hearing date for August 6, 1997. The order did not specify the subject matter of the hearing.
Butts did not file a response to Hegmann’s petition and appeared at the August 6, 1997 hearing pro se. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered that Heg-mann have sole parental responsibility and permanent sole custody of the minor child. Butts then appealed, claiming that the notice of hearing did not indicate that Hegmann’s petition on permanent custody would be heard on that date.
The notice required for any proceeding which may produce a final result is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citations omitted); Franko v. Ryan-Franko, 679 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, the notice of the August 6, 1997 hearing contained in the ex-parte order on Hegmann’s motion for temporary injunction did not reasonably apprise either party that that hearing would result in a permanent custody determination. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Hegmann permanent custody of the minor child and remand the case for a final hearing after due notice has been properly given.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sklandis v. Walgreen Co., 832 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ken, and plaintiff made a timely objection on this point. The plaintiff is entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to any order being entered which would dismiss the case on the basis of fraud and perjury. See Butts v. Hegmann, 705 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Further, one day’s notice for a nonemer-gency dispositive motion was unreasonably short. See J.B. v. Dept.…
-
Derrevere v. Gena B. Derrevere, 874 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…t properly correspond with the calendar. As a result, the notice was defective because it caused Dale to miss the hearing and the opportunity to present his opposition to the motion to the trial court before it made its ruling. See Butts v. Hegmann, 705 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(“The notice required for any proceeding which may produce a final result is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity t…
-
DeCHELLIS v. DeCHELLIS, 925 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…rd in opposition to its entry. Without an opportunity to be heard, a party is deprived of his due process rights. Id. at 423. Because the effect of a QDRO is to produce a final result, adequate notice becomes even more imperative. Butts v. Hegmann, 705 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (the notice required for any proceeding which may produce a final result is notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford [*382] them an opportunity…
Authorities Cited
- Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Franko v. Ryan-Franko, 679 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)