CAROL PARIS WELLS, PETITIONER,
v.
DWIGHT M. WELLS AND ROGER MILLS, RESPONDENTS
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 erred by ordering a party to change her will without proper notice or opportunity to be heard.
During litigation over an office building, the ex-husband orally requested the trial court to order the ex-wife to change a provision in her will rela…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Carol Paris Wells in which she seeks to have an order of the trial court quashed. We grant the petition and quash the order of the trial court directing Carol Wells to change a provision in her will.
Carol Wells and her ex-husband are involved in litigation concerning an office building. Carol Wells filed a motion for partial summary judgment which was denied by the trial court. At the end of the hearing, the ex-husband, Dwight M. Wells, orally requested that Carol Wells be required to change the provision in her will that pertains to the office building to comply with the marital settlement agreement. Over the objection of Carol Wells, the court directed her to change her will to comply with the settlement agreement within ten days.
Due process requires that a party receive notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of an order that affects her interests. See Hully v. Hully, 653 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Al though both parties mention the provision of the settlement agreement that pertains to Carol Wells’ will in various pleadings, neither party had requested any relief concerning this provision until Dwight Wells’ oral motion at the summary judgment hearing. Entry of the order directing Carol Wells to change her will deprived her of an interest in the property without any notice and departed from the essential requirements of the law.
The order of the trial court is quashed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masiello v. Masiello, 850 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…rcumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present them objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); cf. Wells v. Wells, 779 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding it was error to order the ex-wife to change a provision of her will dealing with certain real property to comply with the parties’ marital settlement agreement on an oral motion by her ex-husband at a summary judgmen…
Authorities Cited
- Hully v. Hully, 653 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)