HOWARD DEAN LESLIE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROWENA MARIE GRAY-LESLIE, 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.
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed a default final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered against the husband because the trial court failed to provide notice of trial and an opportunity to be heard, and failed to take evidence on matters concerning the couple's minor children. The court held that even when a party's pleadings are struck for non-compliance, the opposing party must still present evidence and the court cannot determine custody issues by default.
No. The court reversed the default judgment because: (1) even when a party's pleadings are struck, the opposing party must still present evidence in support of their claims, particularly regarding child custody and support; (2) custody and support issues cannot ordinarily be determined by default because the best interests of the children are paramount; and (3) the non-compliant party was entitled to notice of trial and an opportunity to be heard, notwithstanding the striking of pleadings.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings for non-compliance does not obviate the need for the opposing party to present evidence to the court.
[2] In dissolution of marriage actions, the best interests of minor children are paramount and generally preclude determining custody issues by default.
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“The striking of the husband's pleadings did not obviate the need for the wife, Rowena Marie Gray-Leslie, to provide evidence to the court in support of her counter petition.”
Establishes that striking pleadings does not eliminate the requirement for the opposing party to present evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward Dean Leslie failed to provide mandatory disclosure and comply with court orders in his dissolution of marriage case. The trial court struck his…
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 Mandatory Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
The husband, Howard Dean Leslie, appeals the entry of a default final judgment of dissolution of marriage after the trial court had struck his pleadings for failure to provide mandatory disclosure and for non-compliance with court orders. The default final judgment included provisions concerning parental responsibility for the parties’ two minor children, time sharing, the parenting plan, child support, equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, and attorney’s fees. Although the record before us is limited, it is sufficient to establish that the final judgment was entered notwithstanding a lack of a notice of trial and the failure of the court to take evidence. Accordingly, we reverse.
The striking of the husband’s pleadings did not obviate the need for the wife, Rowena Marie Gray-Leslie, to provide evidence to the court in support of her counter petition. Doane v. Doane, 279 So.2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (holding that in matters of custody and support, “there must be some evidence concerning the parents’ respective financial positions, the needs of the child, and most importantly the child’s welfare and best interests.”); see also Lopez v, Lopez, 920 So.2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Furthermore, it is generally improper in a dissolution of marriage action to determine issues regarding the care and custody of minor children by entry of a default because the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration. See Childers v. Riley, 823 So.2d 246, 246-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that issue of custody should not ordinarily be determined by entering default against one parent); Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Finally, although the trial court struck his pleadings, the husband was entitled to a notice of trial and an opportunity *382to be heard.1 See De La Torre v. Queija, 702 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that trial court erred in granting former wife’s modification of child support because, notwithstanding entry of default, former husband should have still been 'afforded opportunity to be heard and present evidence at hearing regarding amount of his child support obligation); Levine v. Del Am. Props., Inc., 642 So.2d 32, 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Arca v. Arca, 606 So.2d 768, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE VACATED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corridon v. Grace-Elizabeth Carolyn Corridon (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…. .” Id. at 895. This is because “the ‘best interest of the child’ standard precludes a determination of child custody based on a parent’s default.” Armstrong v. Panzarino, 812 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Leslie v. Gray-Leslie, 187 So. 3d 380, 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“[I]t is generally improper in a dissolution of marriage action to determine issues regarding the care and custody of minor children by entry of a default because the best interests of the children are the paramount con…
Authorities Cited
- Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Levine v. DEL Am. Props., Inc., 642 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Childers v. Riley, 823 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Minita Lopez v. Lopez, 920 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Arca v. Arca, 606 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Lucio DE LA Torre v. Yakelin Queija, 702 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)