SUSAN ELIZABETH FARRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK DAVID FARRELL, 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.
In a post-dissolution family law matter, the Former Wife appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for attorney's fees incurred in defending against a contempt motion. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court violated due process by denying the motion before completion of the evidentiary hearing and without allowing the Former Wife to present her full case.
The trial court's denial of the motion violated the Former Wife's right to due process. A trial court must allow parties to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner on disputed issues. The denial of this right requires reversal and remand for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court's failure to allow a party to present evidence and be heard on pending issues constitutes a denial of due process.
[2] The denial of a litigant's right to due process requires reversal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court's failure to allow a party to present evidence and to be heard on the issues pending before the court constitutes a denial of due process.”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional violation at issue and the legal standard 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 intelligenceThe Former Wife filed a motion for attorney's fees related to defending against a contempt and sanctions motion filed by the Former Husband. An eviden…
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 Motion For Recusal cases and more on FLexlaw
Susan Elizabeth Farrell (the Former Wife) appeals the trial court’s post-dissolution order that denied her motion for an award of attorney’s fees that she incurred during her defense against a motion for contempt and sanctions filed by Mark David Farrell (the Former Husband). The Former Husband correctly concedes error, and we reverse.
At a scheduled evidentiary hearing on the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees, the Former Wife was unable to complete her case during the time reserved, and the Former Husband was unable to present any of his evidence. Thus, at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties scheduled a continuation of the hearing for several weeks later. Inexplicably, however, the trial court sua sponte entered an order denying the Former Wife’s motion four days before the date set for the continuation of the hearing.
*478A trial court’s failure to allow a party to present evidence and to be heard on the issues pending before the court constitutes a denial of due process. See Vollmer v. Key Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that parties have a right to “ ‘introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” and that the violation of this right constitutes a denial of due process (quoting Baron v. Baron, 941 So.2d 1233, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); Minakan v. Husted, 27 So.3d 695, 698-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that it was a violation of due process to refuse to allow the wife to testify and present evidence on a disputed issue of fact). The denial of a litigant’s right to due process requires reversal. See Vollmer, 966 So.2d at 1027. Accordingly, as the Former Husband properly concedes, we must reverse the order denying the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings.1
In her initial brief, the Former Wife also argues that this court should order that any further trial court proceedings be held before a different judge based on findings in the trial court’s order that the Former Wife contends reflect bias. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to make such a ruling, particularly since this issue was raised for the first time in this court. However, if the Former Wife believes she has a good faith basis for moving to recuse the trial judge on remand, she may file such a motion in that court.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quintero v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Vollmer v. KEY Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Eli Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Riesa P. Minakan v. Husted, 27 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)