GLENN K. BURCH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA, 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.
Glenn Burch appeals a summary judgment forfeiting his vehicle under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act after drugs were discovered in it. The court reverses, holding that Burch was denied due process by being unable to appear or be heard at the summary judgment hearing, as the trial court failed to consider alternatives such as telephone appearance or prisoner transportation.
The court reversed the forfeiture judgment, holding that Burch was deprived of due process because the trial court failed to afford him an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that when considering a prisoner's request to appear at a civil hearing, the court must consider multiple relevant factors including risk of escape, expedited disposition needs, costs, security precautions, the nature of the hearing, and impacts on state agencies, as well as alternative appearances such as by telephone.
[1] A court must afford due process to a party facing forfeiture of property, which includes providing an opportunity to be heard.
[2] A court abuses its discretion by denying a prisoner's request to appear at a civil hearing without considering all relevant factors, including the possibility of telephon…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 basic due process guarantee of the Florida Constitution provides that '[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.' Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for the court's due process analysis protecting property rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDrugs were discovered in Glenn Burch's car, prompting the City of Lakeland to file a verified complaint seeking forfeiture under the Florida Contraban…
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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Glenn Burch appeals a final summary judgment forfeiting his car to the City of Lakeland under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. We reverse because the court failed to afford due process by allowing Burch to appear or be heard at the summary judgment hearing.
The City filed a verified complaint seeking the forfeiture of Burch’s car after drugs were discovered inside it, and ultimately the City filed a motion for summary judgment. Burch, a state prison inmate, filed a pro se motion asking to be transported from prison to attend the scheduled summary judgment hearing. In the alternative, Burch asked for a continuance of the hearing until his release from prison in eleven months. After the hearing, which Burch did not attend, the circuit court entered a summary judgment and final order of forfeiture in favor of the City. In the same order, the court denied Burch’s motion to appear at the hearing, stating that his presence was not necessary because the court’s disposition of a summary judgment motion was based on a consideration of the record. A court should consider any relevant factors when deciding whether to have a prisoner transported to attend a civil hearing, including “risk of escape, need for expedited disposition, costs, inconvenience, security precautions, the nature of the hearing, [and] impact of court ordered transportation on the state and the correctional agencies involved[.]” Waugh v. Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), disagreed with on other grounds by Mascola v. Lusskin, 727 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As an alternative to the prisoner’s physical presence, a court may permit the prisoner’s appearance by telephone. Id.; see also Helm v. Foote, 841 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
The record in this case reveals that when denying Burch’s motion the court considered only the nature of the hearing. It failed to consider the alternative of having Burch appear by telephone. Consequently, Burch suffered a summary judgment forfeiting his property without being given an opportunity to be heard. “The basic due process guarantee of the Florida Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’ Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).
Procedural due process under the Florida Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to have that course of legal procedure which has been established in our judicial system for the protection and enforcement of private rights. It contemplates that the defendant shall be given fair notice and afforded a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.
Id. (quoting in part State ex rel. Gore v. Chillingworth, 126 Fla. 645, 171 So. 649, 654 (1936)) (internal brackets omitted).
We reverse the forfeiture of Burch’s property and remand for further proceedings consistent with Burch’s due process rights. We have reviewed the other issues raised by Burch but find no merit there.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC, 68 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…eí Poynter v. Bunnell, 51 So. 3d 543, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Due process requires that a party ‘“be given ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.’ ” Burch v. City of Lakeland, 891 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991)). VMD and BPS were completely denied the opportunity to defend their interests in the property. Further, VMD and BPS were not parties to the new…
-
Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ve to secure the opportunity to appear and present his version of the facts. In other words,"the prisoner must bring to the court’s attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at hearing or trial. See, e.g. Burch v. City of Lakeland, 891 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Waugh v. Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Otherwise, the court will assume that the defendant does not desire to be present, just as it does with a non-incarcerated defendant who does not appear for trial in a civil matter…
-
Lolita B. Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ven ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.' " VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC, 68 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Burch v. City Of Lakeland, 891 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ). Violations of due process rights are fundamental error. Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Chillingworth, 126 Fla. 645 (Fla. 1936)
- Mascola v. Lusskin, 727 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dawson-Knapp v. State, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Waugh v. Caren Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- McArthur Helm v. Foote, 841 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)