CLAUDE GOODWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
GRACE S. WHITLEY, 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 the lower court erred by denying a motion to dissolve an injunction without providing the movant an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A party seeking to dissolve an injunction is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the motion.
[2] A court commits a due process violation by denying a motion to dissolve an injunction without allowing the moving party to present evidence or argument.
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 intelligenceClaude Goodwin appealed an order denying his motion to dissolve an injunction against repeat violence. He argued he had not violated the injunction an…
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 Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Claude Goodwin appeals an order of the circuit court denying his motion to dissolve an injunction against repeat violence. Because the lower court did not give Mr. Goodwin an opportunity to be heard on his motion, we reverse.
Section 784.06(11), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that a party to an injunction may file a motion to modify or dissolve an injunction at any time. Mr. Goodwin filed his motion in 2011, alleging in part that he had never violated, or been accused of violating, the injunction entered in 2007, and he posed no danger to appellee Grace Whitley. He said he is an avid gun owner and wished to regain his right to possess guns, but could not with the injunction in place.
The circuit court held a hearing and asked Ms. Whitley two questions: whether she objected to Mr. Goodwin’s motion to dissolve, and whether she believed she still needed the protection afforded by the injunction. She replied, “I do,” to each question. The judge then said, “Accordingly, I will deny the request.” When Mr. Goodwin’s counsel asked whether the court *933could impose conditions or a time frame that Mr. Goodwin could attempt to satisfy, the court said it would consider this in the future only if Ms. Whitley agreed.
Mr. Goodwin was entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding why continuation of the injunction no longer served a valid purpose. Instead, the court announced its decision based upon Ms. Whitley’s four-word testimony, without offering Mr. Goodwin the chance to cross-examine Ms. Whitley, to testify, or to present argument to 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, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peaslee v. Perrine, 202 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…y to be heard before summarily denying his motion. See Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So. 3d 522, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So. 3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So. 3d 932, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “ ‘[D]ue process requires that [the movant] be given [an] opportunity to be heard on his request— ’” Carroz…
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)
- Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Blackwell v. State, 842 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- McFARR v. Michelle McKEE o/b/o J.M. and J.M., 83 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)