IRIS LAMAR ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNETTA ANN ANDERSON, 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 prisoner has a right to be heard in civil litigation, and if a clerical error prevents their telephonic appearance after they took necessary steps, their due process rights are violated regarding issues not yet finalized.
The former husband, an inmate, requested to appear telephonically at his dissolution of marriage final hearing. A clerical error at the Department of …
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 Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband, Iris Lamar Anderson, appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to the former wife, Annetta Ann Anderson. He argues that he was denied due process when the final hearing was conducted without his telephonic presence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The former husband is an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections. After the former wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, the former husband filed a pro se answer, agreeing that the marriage should be dissolved, but requesting the distribution of certain personal, property. He also filed a motion to appear at the final hearing telephonically. The trial court granted his motion and directed the Department of Corrections to bring him to the telephone at the appointed time. However, because of a clerical error at the Department of Corrections, that was not done and the hearing proceeded without him.
A prisoner involved in civil litigation has the right to be heard, but must take the initiative to secure the proper opportunity to appear telephonically. Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So.2d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (Warner, J., concurring specially). Here, the former husband did all that was required of him. Through no fault of his, or the trial court, his attendance was frustrated. Accordingly, while we affirm the final judgment dissolving the marriage, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the former husband’s due process rights in determining what, if any, personal property the former husband is entitled to receive.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
ORFINGER,. BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webking v. Webking (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)