REBECCA HENDERSON F/K/A REBECCA LYONS, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN G. LYONS AND KATHY M. LEGGETT, APPELLEES
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.
Rebecca Henderson appeals a circuit court order awarding parenting coordinator fees to Kathy Leggett. The appellate court reversed the fee award because the trial court violated Henderson's due process rights by preventing her from completing cross-examination and presenting evidence at the hearing.
The trial court abused its discretion and violated the former wife's right to procedural due process by terminating the hearing before she could complete cross-examination or present witnesses and evidence. The fee award is reversed and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the amount of fees.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a party the opportunity to present witnesses or other evidence at an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A party's right to procedural due process is violated when the court fails to provide a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
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“It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires th[at] the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.”
Establishes the fundamental due process requirement that a party receive a full and fair opportunity to be heard in any proceeding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Lyons and Rebecca Henderson divorced in 2007 with two minor children. In 2009, the parties stipulated to appoint Kathy Leggett as parenting co…
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
Rebecca Henderson, the Former Wife, timely appeals the circuit court’s order awarding fees to Kathy Leggett, the Parenting Coordinator. Because the trial court erred in failing to allow the Former Wife to complete cross-examination or present witnesses at the evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand for a full evidentiary hearing on the amount of fees. As to the remaining issues, we affirm without comment.
The final judgment of dissolution of Stephen Lyons and Rebecca Henderson’s marriage was entered on May 17, 2007. The couple had two minor children. Two years after dissolution, on June 30, 2009, the parties stipulated to the appointment of a parenting coordinator to assist in the preparation and development of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule. The parties requested Leggett be appointed as parenting coordinator, and the court entered an order appointing her. The parties signed a service agreement stating how Leggett’s fees would be calculated and providing that they would share the expense. The agreement also provided that one parent could be required, at the parenting coordinator’s discretion, to pay a disproportionate share of the fees under certain circumstances — for example, if that parent took an unreasonable position or a position inconsistent with the children’s best interests.
On March 31, 2010, the Former Wife filed a motion for termination of the order appointing parenting coordinator, alleging that Leggett was not properly carrying out her duties. Shortly thereafter, Leggett filed a motion to withdraw, claiming that the Former Wife had refused to participate in the parenting coordination process. Leggett attached the order appointing parenting coordinator and the signed agreement for services to her motion. The court granted Leggett’s motion, noting that she was entitled to reasonable compensation for her services. Leggett then filed a motion to tax parenting coordinator fees, requesting that the Former Wife be required to pay a disproportionate amount of the fees owed.
An evidentiary hearing was held on February 2, 2011. The court reiterated that Leggett was entitled to fees based on the parties’ agreement and allowed Leggett to testify on the question of the amount of fees. But before the Former Wife’s attorney finished cross-examining Leggett, the court ended the hearing, stating that the time for the hearing had expired and that additional information was not needed. The Former Wife was not given an opportunity to present her own evidence. On March 11, 2011, the court entered a written order granting Leggett’s motion and awarding fees in the amount Leggett requested. The Former Wife timely appealed.
We review the question of whether a party was denied the opportunity to be heard for an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Smith, 964 So.2d 217, 218-19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “ ‘It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due *401process, which extends into every proceeding, requires th[at] the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.’ ” Id. at 219 (quoting Edelman v. Breed, 836 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). “When a court fails to give one party the opportunity to present witnesses or testify on his or her own behalf, the court has violated that party’s fundamental right to procedural due process.” Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So.3d 605, 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Here, the Former Wife’s right to procedural due process was violated when the trial court denied her an opportunity to present witnesses or other evidence at the hearing. This was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a full evi-dentiary hearing on the question of the amount of fees.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. Cole, 159 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…rocess. The constitutional guarantee of due process dictates a full and fair opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings. The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses or testify violates this fundamental right. Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Smith v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “[T]he ri…
-
Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…sband appeals this order, as well as the successor trial judge’s denial of the husband’s motion for reconsideration.1 “We review the question of whether a party was denied the opportunity to be heard for an abuse of discretion.” Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So. 3d 399, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “The denial of due process rights, including the opportunity to be heard, to testify, and to present evidence, is fundamental error.” Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Essential to the concept of pr…
-
Wilson v. Smith, 126 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…appearance was not due to any inaction on his part. Thus, any consideration of any evidence that may have been offered at that hearing would violate Wilson’s fundamental due process right to be present and to be heard. See, e.g., Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So. 3d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (" 'When a court fails to give one party the opportunity to present witnesses or testify on his or her own behalf, the court has violated that party’s fundamental right to procedural due process.’ ” (quoting Douglas v. Johnso…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Alisa Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Iralett Sha'ron Douglas v. Doyle Dawana Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Edelman v. Breed, 836 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)