JENNIFER PUTZIG, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH BRESK, 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.
Jennifer Putzig appeals a final judgment granting an injunction for protection against dating violence, arguing the trial court violated her due process rights by preventing her from presenting evidence, calling witnesses, or cross-examining the appellee. The appellate court agrees and reverses, holding that Florida law requires a full evidentiary hearing with opportunities for direct examination, cross-examination, and presentation of evidence before entering a permanent dating violence injunction.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying Putzig the opportunity to call witnesses, present evidence, or cross-examine the appellee, as required by section 784.046(6)(c), Florida Statutes, which mandates a full evidentiary hearing before entry of a permanent injunction against dating violence.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying parties to a petition for a dating violence injunction the opportunity to call witnesses, present evidence, or cross-examin…
[2] Section 784.046(6)(c), Florida Statutes, requires a full hearing before the entry of a permanent injunction against dating violence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A full evidentiary hearing 'includes direct examination of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses, and the presentation of any other evidence.'”
Establishes the statutory requirement for what constitutes a full evidentiary hearing in dating violence injunction cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePutzig and the appellee filed countervailing petitions for protection against dating violence arising from the same incident. Both parties appeared pr…
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 Full Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Jennifer Putzig appeals a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection against Dating Violence. Putzig argues that the trial court violated her due process rights by not affording her the opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses, or cross-examine the appellee. We agree and reverse.
Putzig and appellee fíléd countervailing petitions for protection against dating violence arising out of the same incident. Both parties appeared pro se at the injunction hearing. At the outset, the court asked the parties if they had any witnesses. Putzig responded that she had one “on the way.”
The court then swore in the parties and proceeded to question Putzig about the alleged act of dating violence. The court asked very specific questions and stopped Putzig if she veered off-topic; The court next questioned appellee about his version of the events, which he provided. When asked for her response to the appellee’s testimony, Putzig told the court *1047that he was “making it all up” and indicated that she had supporting.text messages. The court did not allow Putzig to elaborate, and granted each party’s petition. The court did not ask to see Putzig’s text-message evidence, inquire as to the status of Putzig’s witness, or allow the parties to cross-examine each other.
“We review whether the trial court afforded a party the opportunity to be heard before imposing an injunction for an abuse' of discretion.” McNulty ex rel. G.M. v. Douglas ex rel. K.D., 111 So.3d 231, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Section 784.046(6)(c), Florida Statutes, requires a full hearing before entry of permanent injunction against dating violence. § 784.046(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). “A full evidentiary hearing ‘includes direct examination -of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses, and the presentation of any other evidence.’ ” McNulty, 111 So.3d at 233 (quoting Niederkom v. Trivino, 68 So.3d 991, 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Accordingly, a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies parties to a petition for a dating violence injunction the opportunity to call witnesses, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. Id.
Here, the transcript of the hearing reflects that the trial court did not present Putrtg with' an opportunity To cross-examine the appellee, call witnesses, or present evidence, even though 'Putzig indicated that she had a witness en-route and had text messages she wanted the court to consider. Accordingly, we reverse the final injunction and remand for a full evi-dentiary hearing.
Reversed and Remanded.
TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitfield v. Haley Breann Meeks & OBO K.M.M. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…(2), (6)(a), (6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2019); see also, e.g., Parise v. Selph, 175 So. 3d 389, 389–90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). A full hearing includes the direct and cross examination of witnesses and the presentation of any other evidence. Putzig v. Bresk, 183 So. 3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing the final injunction because the trial court abused its discretion by denying the appellant the opportunity to call witnesses, present evidence, or cross-examine the appellee). Furthermore, due process requires…
-
Kandyce McPherson v. Killyah Samuel, 392 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Niederkorn v. Trivino, 68 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- McNULTY v. Douglas, 111 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)