ELUR J. RAYMONVIL, APPELLANT,
v.
SADE FERRARI LEWIS, 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.
Trial court violated due process by summarily denying without hearing a motion to modify a domestic violence injunction where the movant alleged changed circumstances and a prior agreement limiting the injunction's duration.
A trial court must afford a meaningful hearing on a motion to modify a domestic violence injunction when the motion alleges legally sufficient changed circumstances.
[1] A trial court must provide a meaningful hearing on a motion to modify a domestic violence injunction when the motion alleges legally sufficient changed circumstances, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymonvil sought modification of a domestic violence injunction entered in July 2006. He alleged he had no contact with the petitioner, was incarcerat…
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
Raymonvil appeals from an order denying his motion for modification of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The injunction was entered in July 2006 and was to remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. In his motion, filed in February 2010, Ray-monvil sufficiently alleged that circumstances had changed since the entry of the injunction. Specifically, Raymonvil alleged that he had not had contact with the petitioner, was presently incarcerated, and the injunction was impacting his ability to participate in a work-release program. Ray-monvil further claimed that he had stipulated to the entry of the injunction based on an agreement that the injunction would expire after one year. The trial court denied the motion without affording Ray-monvil the opportunity for a hearing. No reasons were given for the denial.
The trial court’s summary denial of Ray-monvil’s motion violated due process requirements. See, e.g., Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because Raymonvil’s motion *140was legally sufficient, the trial court was required to afford him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…nd that the injunction is preventing him from participating in a prison Reality House A.A. program. The trial court erred in denying this legally sufficient motion without affording appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. BENTON, C.J., WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
McFARR v. Michelle McKEE o/b/o J.M. and J.M., 83 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…nsofar as it relates to the fraud allegation. However, due process requires that the trial court afford McFarr a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the remaining claim. See Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). [*777] AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for further procéed-ings. ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and PALMER,…
-
Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…Ramirez v. Teutsch, — So. 3d -, 2012 WL 1759382 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); York v. McCarron, 842 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); McFarr v. McKee, 83 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We REVERSE and REMAND with directions to the lower court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing. PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Reed v. Reed, 816 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)