JOSE M. CHANFRAU, IV, APPELLANT,
v.
JESUS FERNANDEZ, JR., 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.
Jose Chanfrau appealed the trial court's dismissal of his domestic violence injunction and the court's grant of a counter-injunction against him without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court violated due process by dismissing Chanfrau's injunction without notice or hearing, and by granting the counter-petition without any evidence.
The trial court violated due process by dismissing Chanfrau's injunction without motion, notice, or hearing. Additionally, the court erred by granting the counter-petition without an evidentiary hearing, as required by Florida Statute § 741.30 and constitutional due process principles.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss a domestic violence injunction without a motion, notice, or an evidentiary hearing, as doing so violates due process.
[2] A trial court errs by granting relief that a party has not requested.
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“By dismissing the injunction without motion, notice, or evidentiary hearing, the court failed to afford appellant due process in this matter.”
Establishes that dismissal without procedural safeguards violates due process rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 7, 1999, the trial court granted Chanfrau's petition for a domestic violence injunction. Fernandez subsequently filed a counter-petition for a…
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 Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Jose Chanfrau challenges the dismissal of his permanent injunction against domestic violence. He also appeals an order granting appellee’s counter-petition for a domestic violence injunction. We reverse.
The record on appeal is scarce but demonstrates that on July 7, 1999, the trial court granted appellant’s petition for injunction against domestic violence. Ap-pellee later counter-petitioned for an injunction against domestic violence, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled on the counter-petition. However, because all witnesses could not be deposed prior to the hearing date, the parties agreed to a continuance, and the hearing was rescheduled for October 11, 1999. At some point prior to this hearing date, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the counter-petition. It is not clear whether this motion was noticed to be heard on October 11, 1999. The record indicates that appellant had only received appellee’s witness list one week prior to the October 11th hearing and requested another continuance in order to depose certain witnesses before the hearing. Appellee opposed continuing the matter and argued that appellant’s request was simply an attempt to harass appellee’s witnesses.
The trial court denied the motion for continuance, dismissed appellant’s injunction entered on July 7, 1999, and without hearing any evidence, granted appel-lee’s counter-petition for injunction. There was great confusion at the hearing as to which party moved for dismissal and what matters were set to be heard. Nevertheless, on appeal the parties agree that appellee never sought to have the July 7, 1999, injunction dismissed or dissolved. Thus, the court granted relief which appel-lee never requested. Appellant was given no notice that the court would even contemplate dismissal nor was he given an opportunity to argue against it. By dismissing the injunction without motion, notice, or evidentiary hearing, the court failed to afford appellant due process in this matter. Snyder v. Snyder, 685 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The dismissal is therefore reversed.
The trial court further erred in granting appellee’s counter-petition for injunction without hearing any evidence. Section 741.30, Florida Statutes (1999), which governs domestic violence injunctions, requires that a trial court hold a full evidentiary hearing prior to entering a permanent injunction against domestic violence. § 741.80(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). Constitutional principles of due process impose the same requirement. Semple v. Semple, 763 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vincente L. Wooten v. Zandra Jackson, 812 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…cause the trial court denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. On remand, the trial court shall permit the parties to present evidence on the issue of entitlement to the requested injunction. See, e.g., Chanfrau v. Fernandez, 782 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (both section 741.30 and constitutional principles of due process require that the court hold a full evidentiary hearing before entering a permanent injunction against domestic violence); Utley v. Baez-Camacho, 743 So. 2d 613…
-
Fulton Q. Griffith v. State, 922 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…evidentiary hearing where the trial court did not give the appellant the opportunity to fully present his case and cross-examine witnesses in a proceeding on the appellee’s petition for an injunction for protection); see also Chanfrau v. Fernandez, 782 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Semple and reversing for failure to hear any evidence on domestic violence injunction, which requires a full evidentiary hearing); Sapp v. Redding, 178 So. 2d 204, 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (in a civil suit, trial court…
-
Parrish v. Parrish, 161 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…mpanying the briefs pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(e) that the trial court [*503] otherwise reviewed the sufficiency of the petition, allowed the parties an opportunity to respond, or held a hearing. Cf. Chanfrau v. Fernandez, 782 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Appellant was given no notice that the court would even contemplate dismissal!)] nor was he given an opportunity to argue against it. By dismissing the injunction without motion, notice, or evidentiary hearing, the court fa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Semple v. Nanci Semple, 763 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Snyder v. Snyder, 685 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)