LARRY K. DOBSON AND LAURIE M. DOBSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, FOR MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST, SERIES 2005-A9, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Dobsons appealed a foreclosure judgment, arguing the trial court violated their due process rights by preventing them from presenting evidence and closing arguments. The court reversed and remanded, finding fundamental error where the trial court entered judgment before allowing the defendants their opportunity to be heard.
The court held that the trial court violated the Dobsons' due process rights by denying them the opportunity to present evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Due process requires each litigant be given a full and fair opportunity to be heard, including the right to introduce evidence and call witnesses on their behalf.
[1] Due process requires that each litigant be given a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
[2] The right to be heard at an evidentiary hearing includes the right to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 that each litigant be given a "full and fair opportunity to be heard."”
Establishes the fundamental due process standard applicable to the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank presented several witnesses at trial, who were cross-examined by the Dobsons. After Bank rested, the Dobsons moved for involuntary dismissal…
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 Involuntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry and Laurie Dobson timely appeal the Final Judgment of Foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank National Association. We find merit in the Dobsons’ claim that the trial court violated their due process rights when it ended the trial without allowing them to present evidence in their defense. Accordingly, we reverse.
Whether a trial court has violated a party’s due process rights is subject to de novo review. VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., 68 So.3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Poynter v. Bunnell, 51 So.3d 543, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)). Due process requires that each litigant be given a “full and fair opportunity to be heard.” Vollmer v. Key Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Cty. of Pasco v. Riehl, 635 So.2d 17, 18 (Fla. 1994)). “The right to be heard ¿t an evi-dentiary hearing includes more than simply being allowed to be present and to speak. Instead, the right to be heard includes the right ‘to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. (quoting Baron v. Baron, 941 So.2d 1233, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). Thus, “[d]ue process requires that a party be given the opportunity ... to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, and the denial of this right is fundamental error.” Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citation omitted).
At trial, Bank’s attorney presented several witnesses, who were thoroughly cross-examined by the Dobsons. When Bank rested its case, the Dobsons moved for involuntary dismissal based, in part, on Bank’s failure to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage. After Bank responded, the trial court denied the motion. Immediately thereafter, the trial court informed the parties that it was entering final judgment in favor of Bank and asked Bank to submit a proposed final judgment. At that time, the Dobsons’ attorney attempted to move a document into evidence, but the trial court refused to allow him to do so. When counsel protested, the trial court responded by saying: “[j]udgment has been entered. Judgment has been entered,” and the hearing immediately ended.
The record shows the Dobsons wanted to offer at least one piece of evidence for the trial court to consider before ruling, but the court refused to allow them to do so. They were also precluded from presenting closing arguments. This was error.
Inasmuch as the trial court’s refusal to allow the Dobsons to present evidence violated their due process rights, we are compelled to reverse the final judgment and remand for a new trial. See Beltran v. Kalb, 982 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding trial court denied appellants’ right to due process of law when it summarily denied motions without giving appellants reasonable opportunity to be heard (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972))); Edelman v. Breed, 836 So.2d 1092, 1093-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding trial court committed reversible error and denied party due process when it directed verdict against party before he presented his case); Pettry, 706 So.2d at 108 (noting that due process requires party be given opportunity to be heard, to testify, to call witnesses on his behalf, and to present closing argument (citing Vazquez v. Vazquez, 626 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Strong v. Mt. Dora *1175Growers Coop., 495 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986))).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Merced, 238 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Babcock New Haven, LLC v. Vaheed Teimouri, 392 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…timely ensued. Babcock’s primary argument here for reversal is that the trial court’s entry of the dismissal order under the chronology just described violated its right to due process, which we review de novo. See Dobson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 217 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“Whether a trial court has violated a party’s due process rights is subject to de novo review.” (citing VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., 68 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))). We agree with Babcock.…
-
Daniela Souto COE v. Reinier Nicolaas Rautenberg, 358 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…bution and child support); Krift v. Obenour, 152 So. 3d 645, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (timesharing). To the extent Former Wife argues the trial court violated her right to due process, we apply the de novo standard. Dobson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 217 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Former Wife first argues the trial court erred in failing to set a holiday and school break timesharing schedule. We agree. Despite recognizing at the hearing that the parties had an acrimonious parenting relationship,…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972)
- Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC, 68 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Vollmer v. KEY Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Eli Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Vazquez v. Vazquez, 626 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Cnty. OF Pasco v. Chris and Wendy Riehl, 635 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1994)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Bunnell, 51 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Edelman v. Breed, 836 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Evaristo Beltran and Grisel Beltran v. Kalb, 982 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)