EDWARD JAMES UTLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANGEL BAEZ-CAMACHO, 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 Florida appellate court reversed a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence because the trial court failed to conduct a proper due process hearing on the merits, denying the defendant basic procedural protections including sworn testimony, witness examination, and cross-examination.
The court reversed the injunction because the trial court denied Utley a proper due process hearing on the merits. A due process hearing must include sworn testimony, allow both parties to call witnesses, and permit cross-examination to determine factual allegations before the court can determine whether fear is reasonable.
[1] A due process hearing following the grant of an ex parte temporary injunction must allow the respondent an opportunity to present evidence and challenge the petitioner's…
[2] A court cannot determine the reasonableness of fear for an injunction without first determining the underlying facts.
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 purpose of a due process hearing following the grant of an ex parte temporary injunction is to give the defendant an opportunity to show that the allegations previously relied on are not true.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and scope of the due process hearing required by statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUtley and Baez-Camacho had a business relationship that deteriorated. Baez-Camacho alleged Utley committed threatening acts and obtained a temporary i…
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 Ex Parte Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We reverse the Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence (After Notice) because Appellant was denied a due process hearing on the merits.
Utley and Baez-Camacho had a business relationship which soured leaving bad feelings between them. Baez-Camacho, by alleging certain threatening acts committed by Utley, was able to obtain a temporary injunction with a due process hearing to follow. See section 784.046, Fla. Stat. (1998).
At the due process hearing, the court did not swear either witness, did not permit Utley to call witnesses, and did not give Utley the chance to cross-examine Baez-Camacho. The court announced its focus for the hearing as follows:
THE COURT: I have to tell you, from a judge’s standpoint on these all I need to determine is whether the fear is reasonable and grant the permanent injunction.
Ultimately, then I would have to determine whether [the appellee’s claims are] true or not. But like I’m saying, in injunctions, I rarely get into a situation with one side saying nothing happened and the other side saying this happened. I mean, if I were to do that how would I determine whether something happened or not? I’m trying to deal with a person’s fear, not with an act that somebody witnessed. The purpose of a due process hearing following the grant of an ex parte temporary injunction is to give the defendant an opportunity to show that the allegations previously relied on are not true. The witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted. The court cannot determine whether the “fear is reasonable” unless it first determines the facts. Unless the facts are stipulated to, they must be determined the old fashioned way. They were not in this case.
REVERSED.
ANTOON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ohrn v. Ashlee Jewel Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…e an opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. All witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted. Utley v. Baez-Camacho, 743 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). While we are sympathetic to the time constraints faced by busy trial courts, we cannot ignore the dictates of the Florida Statutes or the requirements of fundamental due process concerning the procedures to be utilized in m…
-
Nattassia Matin v. Hill, 801 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…estimony. See Vazquez v. Vazquez, 626 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(noting that both parents should have an opportunity for a full hearing where the witnesses and the parties themselves are available to offer testimony); Utley v. Baez-Camacho, 743 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(“The purpose of a due process hearing following the grant of an ex parte temporary injunction is to give the defendant an opportunity to show that the allegations previously relied on are not true.”). Because the mother was…
-
Semple v. Nanci Semple, 763 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…t of testimony and amount of time necessary to be utilized in deciding a particular case, the trial court erred in not allowing any testimony of witnesses who were present or cross-examination of the parties. See id.; see also Utley v. Baez-Camacho, 743 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(the purpose of a due process hearing following the grant of an ex parte temporary injunction is to give the defendant an opportunity to show that the allegations previously relied on are not true. The witnesses should be sworn, e…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence