PETER HAEBERLI, APPELLANT,
v.
AYLA B. HAEBERLI, 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.
Peter Haeberli appeals a trial court order holding him in contempt for failure to pay spousal support. The appellate court reverses, finding that the trial court violated due process by ruling on contempt motions that had not been properly noticed for hearing.
The trial court violated the former husband's due process rights by ruling on unnoted motions. Fundamental fairness in civil contempt proceedings requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, which was not provided here. Reversal and remand for a new hearing is required.
[1] A party facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard under the Due Process Clause.
[2] A trial court commits a due process violation by ruling on motions for contempt that have not been noticed for a hearing.
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“While a person facing civil contempt sanctions is not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights afforded to a person facing indirect criminal contempt charges, he or she is nonetheless entitled to a proceeding that meets the fundamental fairness requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Establishes the standard that civil contempt proceedings must meet fundamental fairness requirements despite not requiring all criminal due process protections.
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 three contempt motions on March 24, April 2, and April 10, 2014. Only the March 24th motion was noticed for hearing. The former …
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 Willful Failure To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband, Peter Haeberli, appeals a non-final order granting the former wife’s, Ayla B. Haeberli’s, post-dissolution of marriage motions for contempt. The former husband argues that he was denied due process when the trial court ruled on motions that had not been noticed for hearing. We agree and reverse.
The former wife filed motions to hold the former husband in contempt on March 24, 2014, April 2, 2014, and April 10, 2014. Only the March 24th motion was set for a hearing. The former husband asked to appear by telephone, and the former wife objected. The trial court never ruled on the former husband’s request for a telephonic hearing, and the former husband did not attend, telephonieally or otherwise. The hearing proceeded, as scheduled; however, the trial court .failed to rule on the March 24th contempt motion, the only motion that had been noticed. Instead, it ruled on the other two motions, neither of which had been noticed for hearing.
The former wife concedes that the motions ruled on by the trial court were not noticed to be heard at the scheduled hearing. While a person facing civil contempt sanctions is not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights afforded to a person facing indirect criminal contempt charges, he or she is nonetheless entitled to a proceeding that meets the fundamental fairness requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Bresch v. Henderson, 761 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Andrews v. Walton, 428 So.2d 663 (Fla.1983)). Such fundamental fairness includes providing the alleged contemnor with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. (citing Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552,129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994)). The failure to provide the former husband with any notice that the April 2, and 10, 2014, motions for contempt would be considered at the hearing requires reversal and a new hearing.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stusch v. The Matter of Jennifer K. Jiruska, 188 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ontinued the hearing or contacted the father to make arrangements for him to appear by phone. The father was entitled to basic due process and fundamental fairness, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Cervieri v. Cervieri, 814 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In considering whether a trial'court abused its discretion in failing to continue a hearing, we consider “whether the denial of the continuance creates' an inju…
-
Lolita B. Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…). Violations of due process rights are fundamental error. Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice. Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that court violated due process by considering one motion at hearing that was scheduled and noticed for different motion); see Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that court violated due proc…
-
Kirkpatrick Tr. v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)). As such, “[a] court violates a party’s due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice.” Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing rulings on motions not included in notice of hearing); Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing ruling made at conference not noticed for such purpose); Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So. 3d 1035, 1…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Union v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994)
- Lubin v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 428 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1983)
- Bresch v. Cal Henderson, 761 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Ramirez v. Ramirez, 84 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)