MICHAEL JOHN FURRY, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER VON ARB RICKLES, 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.
Appellant challenges a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The court reversed, finding that the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing as required by Florida law, instead limiting the parties' presentation time and conducting most questioning itself.
No. A permanent injunction requires a full hearing prior to issuance, during which parties must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, call pertinent noncumulative witnesses, and cross-examine opposing witnesses. The trial court's limitation on presentation time and restriction of the appellant's ability to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses violated due process requirements.
[1] A trial court violates due process by entering a permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence without conducting a full evidentiary hearing.
[2] Parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove allegations at an injunction hearing, including presenting relevant testimony and conducting cross-e…
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“Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that a full hearing must precede issuance of a permanent injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence. At the hearing, the court informed the parties they had limite…
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 Full Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. Although he raises three issues on appeal, we address only whether the hearing on the injunction satisfied due process requirements. Because the trial court entered the injunction without conducting a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 741.30(5), Florida Statutes (2010), its actions constitute a due process violation. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction. See § 741.30, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If it appears to the court that an immediate and present danger of domestic violence exists, the court may grant a temporary injunction ex parte, pending a full hearing ... ”); see also Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.610(c)(1)(C) (providing that “the court shall conduct a hearing and make a finding of whether domestic violence occurred or whether imminent danger of domestic violence exists”); Lewis v. Lewis, 689 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Section 741.30[ ] anticipates a “full hearing” prior to issuing a permanent injunction”). 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. See Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). This includes allowing relevant testimony of pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are present and cross-examination of the parties. See Lewis, 689 So.2d at 1273.
In the instant case, the court began the hearing by informing the parties that they had a limited amount of time to present their cases. The court then conducted all questioning of the parties and virtually all questioning of the other witnesses that testified. The court was aware the attorneys might wish to conduct direct/cross examination as it made two comments dismissing any request based on time constraints. The court also dismissed Appellant’s request for a “quick hearing”; denied his request to present the relevant noncumulative testimony of a pertinent witness; and did not allow him to “object to,” or cross-examine, the opposing party’s expert witness. The latter two requests speak directly to the injunction filed on the child’s behalf. While the court might have remained unconvinced had it heard additional evidence, it still should have provided Appellant the opportunity to fully present his case.
Because Appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case and because time constraints are not an excuse for a trial court’s failure to conduct a full hearing, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new hearing. See Ohrn, 963 So.2d at 298 (‘While we are sympathetic to the time constraints faced by busy trial courts, we cannot ignore the dictates of the Florida Statutes or the requirements of fundamental due process concerning the procedures *391to be utilized in making critical decisions of this nature”).
HAWKES, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ent to be affirmed, the record must demonstrate a sufficient basis for the conclusions of law). We respect the gravity of the circumstances involved in any domestic violence proceeding, which implicates due process considerations. Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Smith v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Just as the petitioner has the right to allege and prove the grounds for injunc-tive protection at a full and fair evidentiary hearing, the respondent is entitled to a fair hear…
-
David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…conduct an adequate evidentiary hearing in that it did not give Appellant the opportunity to present his case. Appellant is correct. “Parties are entitled to a full hearing prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction.” Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). “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.” Id. “This includes allowing relevant testimony of pe…
-
Johns v. Johns, 101 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…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) (citing Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). In the instant case, the trial court chose to conduct all of the questioning at the informal hearing, as neither party was represented by counsel. Appellee was a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Lewis, 689 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Ohrn v. Ashlee Jewel Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)