DYANA MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARSHALL LEE, 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 court held that a no-contact order cannot be granted without being requested in the pleadings and supported by evidence.
Following a final hearing, the former husband requested a no-contact order against the former wife. The trial court granted the request based solely o…
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 No-Contact Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Dyana Martin, former wife, appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. Martin raises three issues on appeal, two of which are affirmed without further comment. With regard to the third issue, Martin argues the trial court erred in granting Marshall Lee’s, former hus*1025band’s, ore terms request for a no-contact order.
At the conclusion of the final hearing, Lee requested a no-contact order. No testimony was taken on the matter; however, Lee’s counsel alleged Martin had been contacting Lee’s mother and had a history of being volatile. Without any additional evidence upon which to base its determination, the trial court granted Lee’s request. It is well settled that courts are not authorized to grant relief not requested in the pleadings. Causey v. Causey, 36 So.3d 893, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Cardinal Inv. Grp. Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). It is clear, based on the record, that Lee did not request the no-contact order in the pleadings. Thus, that portion of the Final Judgment granting the same is reversed. Further, there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order granting Lee’s request for a no-contact order, as this was simply based on allegations set forth by Lee’s counsel. See McMath v. Biernacki, 776 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We, therefore, reverse the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage as to the granting of the former husband’s ore terms request for a no-contact order. We affirm the Final Judgment in all other respects without further comment.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Williams, 334 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
-
Musi v. Credo, 273 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Pensacola Beach Elementary Sch. v. Moyer (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Cardinal Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Giles, 813 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Menthia Faulk v. AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc., 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Stokes v. State, 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Tarvaris Kelly v. State, 36 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Causey v. Causey, 36 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)