DARREN HURST, APPELLANT,
v.
DELIA MELO HURST, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a contempt order against a father for failure to pay temporary child support because he was denied procedural due process—specifically, he was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the trial court entered the contempt order.
The trial court's failure to afford the Husband an opportunity to present evidence and be heard on the contempt motion violated his right to procedural due process, warranting reversal of the contempt order.
[1] A party facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[2] Failure to provide notice of a hearing to an opposing party, absent a true emergency, deprives that party of their right to procedural due process.
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 failure to afford the Husband an opportunity to present evidence - and be heard on the Wife's motion deprived him of his right to procedural due process.”
Establishes the core holding that due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard in contempt proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court ordered the Husband to pay $1,490 per month in child support for October 2015 through Feb…
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 Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
Darren Hurst (“the Husband”) appeals an order finding him in contempt for failure to pay temporary child support and requiring him to bring his child support payments current within five days. Because the Husband was not afforded due process, we reverse.
During the pendency of the parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court ordered the Husband to pay child support in the amount of $1490 per month for the months of October 2015 through February 2016, Subsequently, on January 21, 2016, Delia Hurst (“the Wife”) filed a verified emergency, motion for contempt and for an order compelling the Husband *1263.to pay child support.1 Four days later, the trial judge’s judicial assistant sent an email message to the Wife’s attorney requesting a proposed order on the emergency motion. . The Husband’s attorney was copied on the e-mail and immediately filed a written response, objecting to the matter being treated as an emergency. The following day, notwithstanding the lack of a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the Wife’s motion.
The failure to afford the Husband an opportunity to present evidence - and be heard on the Wife’s motion deprived him of his right to procedural due process. See Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 So.3d 319, 321 (Fla. 6th DCA 2015) (“We begin our analysis with the basic premise that a ‘[fjailure to give notice of a hearing to the opposing party absent a true emergency deprives the opposing party of its right to. procedural due process.’”); see also Chetram v. Singh, 937 So.2d 716, 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A person facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).2
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ilyas Zinnurov v. Shelegina (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Chetram v. Saraswattee Singh, 937 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Safa Suleiman v. Basem Yunis, 168 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)