JOSHUA WOOLLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANGELA J. NELSEN, 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 summary denial of motion to dissolve dating violence protective injunction, holding that due process requires a hearing when incarceration may render the injunction's purpose moot.
Due process requires a trial court to hold a hearing on a motion to dissolve a protective injunction rather than summarily denying it, particularly where incarceration may eliminate the injunction's valid purpose.
[1] Due process requires a trial court to hold a hearing on a motion to dissolve a protective injunction before summarily denying it, particularly where the movant alleges in…
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 a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
Court citing McCormick v. Shannon in support of the requirement for a hearing before denying such motions.
In 2009, Angela Nelson obtained a dating violence protective injunction against Joshua Woolley. In March 2015, while serving ten-and-twelve year sente…
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 Dating Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
In 2009, Angela Nelson acquired a dating violence protective injunction against Joshua Woolley. In March 2015, Woolley filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging that he had been convicted of unrelated criminal charges and had begun serving his ten-and-twelve year sentences resulting from those convictions. He argued that the injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to his incarceration and that the injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a facility closer to home. Six days later, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Woolley appealed, arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without first holding a hearing.
We agree that Woolley is entitled to a hearing on his motion. “Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So.3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). And based on the allegations in Woolley’s motion, he may be entitled to relief. See Baker v. Baker, 112 So.3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that domestic violence injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to movant’s lengthy incarceration). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Woolley’s motion and remand for a hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alston v. Sheimira Haines, 215 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…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 that a hearing was required on motion to dissolve an injunction when inmate alleged injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a fac…
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Shannon, 32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Baker v. Baker, 112 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)