CARSON-GRAYSON
v.
GRAYSON
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 court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing and ruling on substantive motions without providing proper notice that the merits would be determined at that hearing. Reversal and remand for a new hearing is required.
[1] Due process requires that a party receive a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure before judgment is rendered against that party.
[2] A court violates a party's due process rights by expanding the scope of a hearing and ruling on substantive motions without providing proper notice that the merits will b…
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 requiring notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment.
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 and later two motions seeking transfer of her proper…
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 Property Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
LOLITA B. CARSON-GRAYSON, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2381 ALAN GRAYSON, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 25, 2018 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge. Lisa J. Ramsey, of Ramsey Law, PLLC, Oviedo, for Appellant. Kenneth D. Morse, of Kenneth D. Morse, P.A., Heathrow, for Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
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 1 We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), (iii)a.; see Austin v. Austin, 120 So. 3d 669, 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that order directing liquidation
2
This litigation began when Ms. Carson-Grayson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Grayson filed a counterclaim seeking 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
of assets and disbursement of funds was appealable interlocutory order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and (iii)); see also Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309, 310-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (permitting review of allegation of due process violation even where appellant failed to preserve ruling for appeal because such violations are fundamental error).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Haeberli v. Ayla B. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Sagastizado v. State, 132 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)