VASALIKI MICHELLE OWENS N/K/A VASALIKI MICHELLE PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID SCOTT OWENS, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a dismissal of a child support arrearages claim where the trial court entered an order dismissing the case based on a motion to dismiss that was never served on the appellant and without providing her notice or opportunity to be heard. The court held that the procedure violated basic procedural due process rights.
The dismissal violated appellant's procedural due process rights. Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, and appellant received neither in this case. The order of dismissal was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
[1] Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.
[2] An order of dismissal entered without notice to a party and without that party having an opportunity to be heard violates procedural due process.
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“Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.”
Establishes the foundational legal standard for procedural due process that the trial court violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, the former wife, filed a claim for past due child support arrearages against her ex-husband (appellee). The appellee's attorney filed a mot…
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the former wife of appellee, seeks review of an order of dismissal entered by the circuit court. Appellant points out, and the record confirms, that appellee’s attorney obtained the order of dismissal by filing a motion to dismiss, a copy of which was never served upon appellant. The motion to dismiss alleges affirmative factual matters, which, if true, might ultimately be of great aid to appel-lee in defending appellant’s claim for past due child support. For reasons not disclosed by the record, the circuit judge seems to have entered, in a more or less ex parte manner, an order dismissing appellant’s claim for child support arrearages. The record reflects that appellant has never been heard on this question.
Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heal’d before judgment is rendered. See Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991). We are persuaded that appellant not only had no opportunity to be heard, she received no notice at all of the proceeding. Interestingly, in attempting to uphold the order, appellee’s counsel does not respond to the due process argument. Instead, counsel *1094argues that we should review the order of dismissal under the familiar abuse of discretion standard generally applicable in Florida dissolution of marriage matters. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). In support of his argument, counsel has attached a number of “exhibits,” which, if presented to the court below, might support a contention that child support arrearages had been satisfied. The problem is, these exhibits have never been presented to the court below, and appellant has never had an opportunity to explain her contention that she is still owed monies, whether in the form of arrearages, interest, attorney’s fees, or costs associated with those other matters.
We conclude that the procedure utilized below effectively deprived appellant of her basic due process rights. We express no opinion on the underlying merits of this case. The order of dismissal with prejudice is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. Walker-Brooks, 119 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ing order did not set forth any specific findings regarding the fee award, we reverse. As to Appellant’s first issue, “[procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard before judgment is entered.” Owens v. Owens, 14 So. 3d 1093, 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Where a party receives no notice, it has been deprived of due process and the underlying order must be reversed. Owens v. Owens, 14 So. 3d 1093, 1093-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Loudermilk v. Loudermilk, 693 So. 2d 66…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)