TIMOTHY JAMES MURPHY, APPELLANT,
v.
LENORA D. RIDGARD F/K/A LENORA BROWN, 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.
Timothy Murphy appealed from a trial court's summary denial of his petition for increased child visitation without a properly noticed hearing. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that due process rights require notice and an opportunity to be heard in child custody and visitation modification proceedings.
The father's due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard were violated by the summary denial of his petition. Due process principles apply to modification proceedings including child custody and visitation matters, and a party is entitled to procedural due process in the consideration of such petitions.
[1] Due process principles apply to modification proceedings, including child custody and visitation matters.
[2] A party's due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard are abridged by the summary denial of a petition without a properly noticed hearing or motion for su…
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“the father is correct that his due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard were abridged by the summary denial of his petition”
Establishes the core holding that procedural due process was violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy filed a second amended supplemental petition for modification seeking additional child visitation. At a hearing the trial court had noticed on …
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 Modification Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
Timothy Murphy, father, appeals from a final order of modification of final judgment and order denying supplemental petition for modification of visitation. To the extent that these orders summarily deny the father’s second amended supplemental petition for modification, we reverse.
The father filed a second amended supplemental petition for modification of final judgment seeking additional child visitation. At a hearing noticed by the mother on two of her pending motions,1 the trial court very briefly broached the visitation issue, suggesting that each party submit a proposed visitation schedule.
The father presented a visitation schedule but the trial court, in entering the final order of modification struck through the paragraph in the order which would have adopted the schedule. The court then summarily denied the father’s supplemental petition by separate order.2 This order contains the following language:
11. The Respondent/Father has not presented any evidence that there has been a substantial change of circumstances or that increased visitation is in the child’s best interests.
The father is correct that his due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard were abridged by the summary denial of his petition. Due process principles apply to modification proceedings including child custody and visitation matters. See Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Ackerson v. Murphy, 622 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993): Shaw v. Shaw, 455 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In this case, no motion seeking summary adjudication of the father’s second amended petition was filed. The matter was not at issue when, following the hearing on the mother’s pending motions for injunctive relief and temporary attorney’s fees, the trial court summarily denied the father’s second amended petition seeking modification. See Gelato v. Basch, 658 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(temporary change of custody violated mother’s due process rights where it was ordered at close, of hearing which mother had every reason to believe concerned only her motion to allow her fiancé to move into her house with the children, even though father had filed motion for change of residence). The confusion engendered by the procedure employed below is manifested by the trial court’s recitation in its order that the father failed to present evidence in support of his petition. The father never had an opportunity to present evidence at a properly noticed hearing.
No suggestion is offered as to the ultimate merits of the father’s second amended supplemental petition. Rather, we hold that the father is entitled to procedural due process in the consideration of his petition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
W. SHARP and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . For injunctive relief and for temporary, attorney’s fees.
. Apparently the final order of modification had been prepared by the father's counsel, the order denying supplemental petition for modification by the mother’s counsel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borden v. Guardianship OF Elsa Marie Borden-Moore, 818 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…apacity and guardianship proceedings should be dismissed. If these matters were to be considered by the court at the December 7, 2000 hearing, both Sandra and Elsa’s court-appointed attorney were entitled to reasonable notice. See Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (father’s due-process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard on visitation modification petition were abridged by summary denial of his petition because no motion seeking summary adjudication of petition was filed,…
-
Shuler v. Christa Darby, 786 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Absent a motion requesting judgment on the pleadings, with adequate notice thereof, the entry of an order granting such relief is a denial of due process and constitutes reversible error. See Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (father’s due-process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard on visitation modification petition were abridged by summary denial of his petition, as no motion seeking summary adjudication of petition was filed, and fathe…
-
Thomas v. Khadejah Cromer (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)….’” Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 988 So. 2d 1148, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citations omitted). “Due process principles apply to modification proceedings including child custody and visitation matters.”5 Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citations omitted). “A trial mother custody on her birthday, the father custody on his birthday, and alternating custody on the child’s birthday. The amended parenting plan eliminated any weekend visitation for the fathe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Blaine Alan Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 455 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Ackerson v. Murphy, 622 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Gelato v. Basch, 658 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)