ANTHONY MCFARR, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE MCKEE O/B/O J.M. AND J.M., CHILDREN, 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 court held that due process requires a hearing on a claim of changed circumstances for dissolving an injunction, but affirmed denial of a fraud claim without a hearing.
Anthony McFarr appealed the denial of his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction for protection against sexual violence, which was entered by stipu…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony McFarr appeals an order denying his motion to dissolve a permanent injunction for protection against sexual violence entered by stipulation in June 2009. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In his motion to modify or dissolve the injunction, McFarr alleged that there was a substantial change of circumstances and that the permanent injunction was obtained by fraud. He further asserted that at the time that he originally stipulated to the entry of the injunction, he was facing criminal charges arising from the alleged misconduct to which the injunction application pertained, and that the party who sought the injunction had filed a civil case against him. However, he alleged that both the civil and criminal matters had been resolved in his favor.
Section 784.046(10), Florida Statutes (2009), allows the court to modify or dissolve an injunction at any time on the motion of an interested party. Likewise, Florida Rule of Family Procedure 12.540 allows a final injunction to be set aside under specified circumstances. In either event, due process requires that McFarr be given an opportunity for a hearing. The trial court did conduct a hearing regarding McFarr’s allegations of fraud, but summarily denied his motion as it pertained to his claim that circumstances had changed. We affirm the trial court’s order insofar 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).
*777AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for further procéed-ings.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…the court. This was a denial of due process. See, e.g., 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, MARSTI…
-
Barfield v. Ranee KAY, 140 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…n interested party. Likewise, Florida Rule of Family Procedure 12.610(6) allows an injunction to be modified or vacated under specified circumstances. In either event, due process requires that Barfield is entitled to a hearing. See McFarr v. McKee, 83 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Sanders v. State, 77 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…on to dismiss. Sanders then pled no contest to the grand theft, reserving her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. “The standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss is de novo.” Simpson v. State, 83 So. 3d 776, 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “Jurisdiction is the very power of the state to exert the influence of its courts over a criminal defendant....” Lane v. State, 388 So. 2d 1022, 1026 (Fla.1980). Florida’s criminal jurisdiction statute provides, in relevan…
Authorities Cited
- Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Elur J. Raymonvil v. Sade Ferrari Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- McCORMICK v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)