RICHARD BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
REGINA ABDO, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2015-07-02
No. 5D14-3565
ORFINGER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
167 So. 3d 522 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2015) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Domestic Violence Injunction Change In Circumstances

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Bennett appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for modification of an injunction for protection against domestic violence. In his motion, Bennett alleged that he is presently incarcerated and will be until December 2031, and the injunction is impacting his ability to participate in a work-release program. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing or explanation.

The trial court’s summary denial of Bennett’s motion was error. Bennett’s motion sufficiently alleged that circumstances had changed since the injunction was entered. See Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So.3d 139, 139-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Because Bennett’s motion was legally sufficient, the trial court was required to afford him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Peaslee v. Perrine, 202 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
    …would serve no valid purpose,” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we hold that the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity 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 DC…
  • Alston v. Sheimira Haines, 215 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
    …earing. We reverse. We have previously addressed this issue in similar contexts and concluded that an evidentiary hearing is required on a motion to modify or dissolve an injunction when the motion is legally sufficient. See, e.g., Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Because Alston’s motion was legally sufficient in this case, he was entitled to an opportunity to be heard. Cf. Woolley v. Nelsen, 183 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw