STEPHAN CRAIG BUTLER AND CAROLE MARIE BUTLER
v.
CLARK F. BROWN, JR. AND SHAUNA KAREN BROWN
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 trial court violates a defendant's procedural due process rights by awarding relief that was not requested in the complaint, not noticed for hearing, and not argued by the parties. The injunction against the rope lights was affirmed, but the provision that it run with the land was reversed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion and violates a defendant's procedural due process rights when it awards relief not requested in the complaint.
[2] Courts must provide proper notice to parties before granting relief in order to protect due process rights.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“"[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the pleadings . . . [t]o grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion . . . and reversible error."”
Establishes the fundamental rule that courts cannot grant relief beyond what was requested in the pleadings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Butlers installed rope lights along their two-hundred-foot dock in the Indian River. The Browns, neighboring property owners, sued claiming the li…
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 To Parties 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 STEPHAN CRAIG BUTLER AND CAROLE MARIE BUTLER, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D21-1494 LT Case No. 2019-CA-037290 CLARK F. BROWN, JR. AND SHAUNA KAREN BROWN, Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 8, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David Dugan, Judge. Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris Appellate Law Office, Mims, for Appellants. James Ippoliti and Scott Widerman, of Widerman Malek, P.L., Melbourne, for Appellees. NARDELLA, J.
Stephan and Carole Butler (collectively, the “Butlers”) appeal the trial court’s final judgment enjoining their use of rope lights along their dock. The Butlers raise two issues on appeal, but we find merit in only one, namely that the trial court erred by ordering the final judgment against the Butlers to “run with the land.”
BACKGROUND
This is a dispute between neighbors about rope lights the Butlers installed along the northern and eastern sides of their two-hundred-foot dock in the Indian River. The Butlers’ neighbors, Clark and Shauna Brown (collectively, the “Browns”) filed a complaint against the Butlers claiming that the rope lights running the length of the Butlers’ dock constituted a private nuisance because the lights disturbed the Browns’ ability to use and enjoy their property. Important here, the Browns asserted a claim for injunctive relief, requesting the trial court “enter an injunction against the Butlers enjoining [them] from lighting their Dock brightly throughout the night and having the light reflect upon the water and onto the Browns’ Property and into Browns’ home.” After a two-day bench trial, the trial court concluded that the “lights on the side of the dock facing the [Browns] constitute a private nuisance to the Browns’ Property and to the Browns.” As a result, the trial court granted the Browns injunctive relief by ordering the Butlers to do one of the following within thirty days of the final judgment:1) “permanently and completely remove the rope lights from the north and east portions of their dock,” or 2) “permanently replace or modify the dock lights with lighting that shall be so placed, shielded, covered or guarded such that no direct or reflected light rays or beams are projected or radiated onto or upon, or are visible from, any part of the Brown’s property lying landward and upland of mean high water mark on the shoreline to which the dock is attached.” The trial court further ordered that the final judgment “run with the land, i.e., the Butler Property[.]”
ANALYSIS
The Butlers contend that the trial court violated their right to procedural due process by ordering the final judgment to “run with the land” because no such relief was requested in the complaint, noticed for a hearing, or argued by the parties.1 This Court reviews a claim that one has been deprived procedural due process de novo. Jenkins v. M.F., 280 So. 3d 507, 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). “[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the pleadings . . . [t]o grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion . . . and reversible error.” Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617–18 (Fla. 2d
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Worthington v. Worthington, 123 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Picard v. Picard, 287 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Sinton v. Sinton, 749 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Buschor v. Buschor, 252 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Pavilion at Healthpark, LLC v. S. M., 280 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)