LATOYIA S. BAILEY GIDDINS, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
JABRIEL K. GIDDINS, HUSBAND, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a dissolution of marriage order because the trial court failed to give the former wife an opportunity to be heard on her pending motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement before entering final judgment.
A trial court must either permit a party to present argument and evidence contesting a marital settlement agreement at the dissolution hearing or defer final judgment until a hearing on a motion to set aside the agreement has been held.
[1] A trial court must provide a party with an opportunity to be heard and present evidence on a motion to set aside a marital settlement agreement before entering a final or…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, ... and the denial of this right is fundamental error.”
Court citing Slotnick v. Slotnick to establish the due process requirement violated by the trial court's failure to allow the former wife to present her case.
The former wife challenged the trial court's final order dissolving the marriage, which adopted the parties' marital settlement agreement, despite her…
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 Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the former wife, challenges the trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage in which the court adopted and incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Appellant argues the court erred in entering the final order over her objection and pending motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement, without first giving her the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. We agree. The trial court should have either permitted appellant to present argument and evidence contesting the adoption of the marital settlement agreement during the hearing on the former husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, or alternatively, the court should have deferred entering a final judgment until a hearing on appellant’s motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement had been held. ‘“Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, ... and the denial of this right is fundamental error.’ ” Slotnick v. Slotnick, 891 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Thus, we reverse the final order of dissolution of marriage and remand for further proceedings. Because we reverse, we find it unnecessary to address the second issue raised by appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Panebianco v. Jackson Health Sys. & Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 183 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…nebianco was not afforded meaningful due process below, we vacate the order entered on November 3, 2014, and remand for a new evidentiary hearing at which he shall be heard and shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses. See Giddins v. Giddins, 151 So. 3d 54, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing for hearing to satisfy due process requirements that party have opportunity to be heard and call witnesses). Sde also § 90.502(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014) (no attorney-client privilege exists as to communications rele…
Authorities Cited
- Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Slotnick v. Slotnick, 891 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)