LOLITA B. CARSON-GRAYSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN GRAYSON, 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.
Lolita Carson-Grayson appeals a non-final order transferring her property interest to her ex-spouse Alan Grayson. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court violated her due process rights by ruling on the merits of motions at a hearing noticed only as a scheduling conference.
Yes. The trial court violated Ms. Carson-Grayson's due process rights by expanding the scope of the hearing beyond what was noticed and deciding the merits of the motions without proper notice. Such violations constitute fundamental error requiring reversal.
[1] A court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice.
[2] Due process requires that a party be given a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure before judgment is rendered against them.
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 a party 'be given ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.'”
Establishes the fundamental due process standard applicable to court proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Carson-Grayson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage; Mr. Grayson filed a counterclaim seeking annulment and relief regarding jointly held …
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 Notice Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Lolita B. Carson-Grayson appeals a non-final order conveying her interest in certain property to Alan Grayson. She argues that she was denied due process when the trial court ruled on motions at a hearing that had been noticed only as a scheduling conference. We agree and reverse.1
This litigation began when Ms. Carson-Grayson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Grayson filed a counterclaim *676seeking annulment, a determination of paternity, and asserting various claims relating to the parties' jointly held property. Following a judgment of annulment of the parties' marriage, Mr. Grayson filed two motions, seeking the transfer of Ms. Carson-Grayson's interest in property to him. He noticed both motions for a full hearing on July 7. Soon thereafter, he filed a second notice setting a short hearing for June 22 for the purpose of "asking for set hearing time for" the motions.
Ms. Carson-Grayson, who was pro se at the time, did not attend the June 22 hearing. Despite being noticed only as a scheduling conference, the court considered and granted both of Mr. Grayson's motions and subsequently entered the order on appeal. The order stated that it was made "on the basis of the evidence and legal argument therein, and considering any opposition filed thereto."2 Nonetheless, the court kept the July 7 hearing on the docket, which Mr. Grayson then re-noticed for a different matter. Ms. Carson-Grayson appeared at the July 7 hearing, but the court refused to address the property distribution motions because they had already been resolved.
"Due process requires that a party 'be given ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.' " VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC, 68 So.3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Burch v. City Of Lakeland, 891 So.2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ). Violations of due process rights are fundamental error. Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So.3d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice. Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So.3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that court violated due process by considering one motion at hearing that was scheduled and noticed for different motion); see Shah v. Shah, 178 So.3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that court violated due process by noticing hearing as status conference but then treating it as final hearing and entering final judgment); Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So.3d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that court violated due process rights by conducting final evidentiary hearing when only case management conference had been scheduled and noticed).
The court's failure to provide Ms. Carson-Grayson with any notice that the merits of the motions would be determined at the June 22 hearing requires reversal and a new hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkpatrick Tr. v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…CA 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)). As such, “[a] court violates a party’s due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice.” Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing rulings on motions not included in notice of hearing); Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing ruling made at conference…
-
Kirkpatrick Tr. v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…CA 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)). As such, “[a] court violates a party’s due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice.” Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing rulings on motions not included in notice of hearing); Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing ruling made at conference…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., LLC, 68 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Prime Orlando Props., Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 502 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Candy Lynn Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Amruta Nilay Shah v. Nilay R. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Austin v. Austin, 120 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Arvita M. Bland v. Bland, 971 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. N.F., 924 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Burch v. City OF Lakeland, 891 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)