MICHAEL WAYNE CORN, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN D. BLACKMON F/K/A SUSAN D. CORN, 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.
A prisoner sought to participate in his dissolution of marriage proceedings by telephone, and the trial court granted his request but mailed the order to an incorrect address. Because the appellant never received notice of the court's grant, he failed to make necessary arrangements and did not appear at the final hearing. The appellate court reversed, finding a violation of due process rights.
The appellant's due process right to participate in the final hearing was violated when he was not notified prior to the final hearing of the court's order granting his motion to participate by telephone. The final judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.
[1] A prisoner's due process right to participate in a final hearing is violated when the court grants a request to appear telephonically but fails to notify the prisoner of…
[2] A trial court must provide notice of its rulings on a party's requests to appear telephonically before a final hearing.
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 appellant's due process right to participate in the final hearing was violated when the appellant was not notified prior to the final hearing of the court's order granting the motion to participate by telephone.”
Establishes the core holding that proper notice of an order granting telephone appearance is constitutionally required before the hearing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Wayne Corn, a prisoner in the Florida Department of Corrections, requested permission to appear by telephone at the final hearing in his divor…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant in this dissolution of marriage action is a prisoner in the Florida Department of Corrections. He requested that the trial court allow him the opportunity to appear by telephone at the final hearing. The court entered an order by which the appellant’s request was granted upon the condition that he make the ap propriate arrangements and initiate the call. Although the appellant had previously notified the court of his correct address at Union Correctional Institution, the order was mailed to the Santa Rosa County Jail. The appellant made several subsequent requests to appear telephonically at the hearing, asserting that he had not received a ruling from the court on his prior motions. The court notified the appellant at his correct address of the scheduled date for the final hearing but made no mention of the earlier order and did not address the pending requests to appear. Because he had not received the court’s order, the appellant did not make the necessary arrangements and did not appear at the hearing. The court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage noted that the court had granted the appellant’s motion to appear telephonically. Upon receiving a copy of the final judgment, the appellant set forth the facts recited above in a motion for rehearing. The motion for rehearing was denied without a hearing.
The appellant’s due process right to participate in the final hearing was violated when the appellant was not notified prior to the final hearing of the court’s order granting the motion to participate by telephone. See, e.g., Days v. Days, 655 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The final judgment is therefore reversed and this case is remanded.
ALLEN, C.J., MINER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Shakira Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…] by the state.” Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (granting incarcerated husband mandamus relief where trial court denied husband’s request to attend final dissolution of marriage hearing telephonically); Corn v. Blackmon, 802 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding trial court denied incarcerated husband due process by failing to notify husband prior to final hearing of order granting husband’s motion to attend hearing by telephone). A motion for an order requiring transport…
Authorities Cited
- Days v. Jannette G. Days, 655 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)