L.C., APPELLANT,
v.
A.M.C., 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 grandfather appeals a final domestic violence injunction prohibiting contact with his granddaughter. The Florida appellate court reverses because the grandfather received only 25 hours' notice of the hearing, which was procedurally insufficient and violated his right to due process.
The court reversed the injunction, holding that the notice was insufficient and that the grandfather was denied procedural due process. The court found no indication in the record that the granddaughter was in danger, much less imminent danger, from the grandfather, and credited his diligent attempts to obtain counsel after receiving notice.
[1] A party must receive reasonable notice of a hearing on a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence.
[2] Service of notice of a hearing on a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence less than twenty-five hours before the hearing may be insufficient…
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“Because the Grandfather did not receive reasonable notice of the hearing on the petition for the injunction, we reverse.”
Statement of the court's holding on the primary issue—that insufficient notice was the basis for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 8, 2010, the mother filed a petition for a domestic violence injunction against the paternal grandfather. The court set a hearing for April 1…
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 Reasonable Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
L.C. (the Grandfather) appeals from the final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence which prohibits him from having any contact with his granddaughter, J.C. Because the Grandfather did not receive reasonable notice of the hearing on the petition for the injunction, we reverse.
On April 8, 2010, A.M.C. (the Mother) filed a petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence against L.C., the child’s paternal grandfather. After reviewing the Mother’s petition, the court found that the facts as stated in the petition standing alone did not justify the entry of a temporary injunction. The court set a hearing for April 15, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. The Grandfather was not served with notice of the hearing until April 14, 2010, at 9:45 a.m. The Grandfather immediately attempted to obtain counsel, but was unable to do so in time for the hearing. After the hearing, he did retain an attorney who promptly filed a motion for rehearing detailing the Grandfather’s efforts to obtain counsel between the time he received the notice and the time of the hearing.
On appeal, the Grandfather argues that the service of notice only twenty-five hours before the hearing was insufficient. See, e.g., Traughber v. Traughber, 941 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (finding that the respondent received insufficient notice of the hearing on the permanent injunction where he was served with notice of the hearing the night before the hearing); Storm v. Decker, 971 So.2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that the respondent was denied procedural due process when the trial court failed to continue the injunction hearing where the respondent was not served with the petition until three business days before the hearing and the record did not reflect any emergency or danger).1 Under the facts here, we agree *1183the notice was insufficient. The record contains no indication that J.C. was in any danger because of L.C., and certainly not imminent danger. L.C. acted diligently to obtain counsel after he was served with the notice, and he promptly sought rehearing after the injunction was entered in a motion that detailed his efforts.2 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 36 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2010)
- Storm v. Decker, 971 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Childs v. State, 941 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Traughber v. Traughber, 941 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)