JEFFREY S. GROVE, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN B. GROVE, 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 this family law appeal, the husband challenges a temporary alimony award and a trial court order incorporating a notice regarding litigation procedures for parties with minor children. The appellate court affirmed the alimony award but reversed and remanded the incorporation of the notice, finding it violated the husband's due process rights by mandating compliance without prior notice to him.
The court affirmed the temporary alimony award without discussion. The court reversed the incorporation of the notice (Paragraph H) and remanded, finding that mandating the husband's compliance with the notice without prior notice to him violated his due process rights. The trial court may reconsider the matter after providing proper notice to the husband.
[1] A trial court violates a party's due process rights by mandating compliance with a notice concerning financial affairs and minor children without prior notice to that par…
[2] A party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court can order compliance with provisions that affect their financial affairs and relationship with…
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 intelligence“Thus, the Husband was not on notice that the trial court was going to mandate compliance with the Notice that concerned his financial affairs and the minor child, including contact, parenting, and other aspects of his relationship with the child. This violated his due process rights.”
Establishes the core due process violation—that the husband lacked notice of the issue and its scope before the court mandated compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeffrey Grove and Karen Grove were parties to a family law proceeding involving temporary relief. The trial court issued an Amended Order on the Wife'…
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 Notice Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Jeffrey S. Grove (the Husband) appeals the nonfinal Amended Order on Wife’s Motion for Temporary Relief (the Amended Order) and raises two issues. First, he challenges the award of temporary alimony in favor of Karen B. Grove (the Wife). We affirm this issue without discussion. Second, the Husband challenges paragraph H of the Amended Order that requires the parties to comply with the “Notice to Litigation Parties with Minor Children” that the Wife served at the commencement of the litigation (the Notice). We reverse that portion of the Amended Order and remand for the trial court to strike paragraph H of the order.
Paragraph H of the Amended Order provides:
The Court hereby incorporates as part of this Temporary Order the provisions *678of the Notice to Litigation Parties with Minor Children served at the commencement of this case consistent with the procedures of the Sixth Judicial Circuit. The Court hereby directs that the obligations addressed therein shall be henceforth observed by the parties, and each of the parties shall comply with the express terms and provisions thereof without exception.
The Husband contends that the trial court in effect entered an overly broad injunction that mandates his compliance but without notice to him that the court would consider this issue. The Notice contained in the appendix was served on the Husband and is signed by the Wife’s counsel.1 The issue of compliance with the Notice was not mentioned in the Wife’s motion or at the hearings on her motion.
Thus, the Husband was not on notice that the trial court was going to mandate compliance with the Notice that concerned his financial affairs and the minor child, including contact, parenting, and other aspects of his relationship with the child. This violated his due process rights. See Mizrahi v. Mizrahi, 867 So.2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (stating that modification of a travel restriction regarding the children without notice to the father violated his due process rights); Cummings v. Cummings, 662 So.2d 769, 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that modification of travel restriction without notice to the wife violated her due process rights).
Therefore, we reverse the Amended Order as to Paragraph H and remand for the trial court to strike that paragraph. The trial court may reconsider the matter after notice to the Husband.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mizrahi v. Noemi Mizrahi, 867 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Parrish v. State, 662 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)