SANDRA SAMANKA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSE MARIE BROOKHOUSER, 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.
Sandra Samanka appealed a modified domestic violence injunction, arguing the trial court violated her due process rights by extending and modifying the injunction without holding a hearing. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that a nonmoving party must receive a hearing before an injunction can be amended.
The trial court's modification of the injunction without a hearing violated Samanka's due process rights. A nonmoving party must be afforded a hearing before an injunction may be amended, and Samanka was denied her "day in court" when the trial court based the modified injunction entirely on the allegations in the motion without giving her an opportunity to challenge those allegations.
[1] A trial court errs by modifying an injunction without affording the nonmoving party a hearing.
[2] A party must be given an opportunity to challenge allegations made in a motion to modify an injunction.
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“A nonmoving party must be afforded a hearing before an injunction may be amended.”
Establishes the core legal principle that due process requires a hearing before modifying an injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose Marie Brookhouser, Samanka's mother, petitioned for a temporary domestic violence injunction against her daughter on April 11, 2002. The trial co…
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 Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Sandra Samanka appeals from the Final Judgment of Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence which extends and modifies an existing injunction. She argues that the trial court denied her due process by modifying the injunction without a hearing. We agree and reverse.
On April 11, 2002, Rose Marie Brook-houser petitioned the court for a temporary domestic violence injunction against her daughter, Sandra Samanka.
The trial court granted the petition the same day and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the petition. Following that hearing, the trial court entered a permanent injunction on May 14, 2002, which was to remain in effect for two years.1 Almost two years later, when the injunction was about to expire, Brookhouser filed a motion requesting that the injunction be extended. Without holding a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered an order captioned “(2nd Modification) Final Judgment of Injunction For Protection Against Domestic Violence Without Minor Children (After Notice).” This order extended the injunction indefinitely and amended some of its terms.
When Samanka was served with the modified injunction, she wrote to the trial judge explaining that after she received the motion for modification she expected to be notified of a court date, but no hearing was set. She claimed that there was no basis to extend the injunction and requested a hearing.
The trial court denied Samanka’s request. This was error. A nonmoving party must be afforded a hearing before an injunction may be amended. Mayotte v. Mayotte, 753 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Brooks v. Barrett, 694 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In this case, the trial court based the modified injunction entirely on the allegations in the motion. Samanka was not given an opportunity to challenge those allegations. Because Samanka has not had her “day in court,” she was denied due process.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . We note that the trial court need not have set a date for the permanent injunction to expire. Section 741.30(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), states that permanent injunctions shall remain in effect until modified or dissolved. See Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So. 2d 189, 191 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). However, the expiration date was not challenged at the time the injunction was entered, and therefore remained in effect.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…the grounds for injunc-tive protection at a full and fair evidentiary hearing, the respondent is entitled to a fair hearing and protection from the effects of a final judgment of injunction that lacks any evidentiary support. Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that respondent daughter’s due process rights were violated when trial court extended and modified permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence, where challenged ruling was based entirely on mere alleg…
-
Smith v. Alisa Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…involved in the notion of procedural due process has greater importance than the right to be heard.’ ” Pope v. Pope, 901 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Miller v. Miller, 691 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding daughter’s due process rights were violated when injunction was modified without a hearing); see also Adili v. Adili, 913 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing an injunction for protection against domesti…
-
Johns v. Johns, 101 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…hearing, the respondent is entitled to a fair hearing and protection from the effects of a final judgment of injunction that lacks any evidentiary support.” Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). “To satisfy due process requirements at an injunction hearing, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint.” Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brooks v. Barrett, 694 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Deidre M. Hunt v. State, 753 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Mayotte v. Mayotte, 753 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Singletary v. Hildra Jones, 709 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Patterson v. Simonik, 709 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)