IVAN DOMNIN
v.
OKSANA FEDOROVNA DOMNINA
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary relief order in a family law case because the trial court terminated the hearing after hearing only the wife's evidence without allowing the husband to present his case-in-chief, thereby violating his due process rights. The case was remanded for a de novo hearing on the wife's requests for temporary alimony, attorney's fees, and suit costs.
The trial court violated the husband's due process rights by denying him an opportunity to present his case-in-chief before ruling on the wife's temporary relief requests. The temporary relief order must be reversed and the case remanded for a de novo hearing on those issues.
[1] A party's due process rights are violated when a trial court terminates a hearing without allowing that party an opportunity to present their case-in-chief.
[2] A de novo hearing is required on remand when a prior order is reversed due to a denial of due process.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial court's termination of the hearing, at which only the wife's evidence in support of her requests for temporary alimony, attorney's fees, and suit costs was heard, without allowing the husband an opportunity to present his case- in-chief, resulted in a denial of the husband's due process rights”
Establishes the core holding that terminating a hearing before allowing the opposing party to present evidence violates due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a family law matter between Ivan Domnin and Oksana Fedorovna Domnina. During a temporary relief hearing in the circuit court, the judge heard …
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael Davis, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE21015969.
Jordan B. Abramowitz of Abramowitz and Associates, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Meaghan K. Marro of Marro Law, P.A., Plantation, for appellee. PER CURIAM.
We reverse the temporary relief order on appeal because the trial court’s termination of the hearing, at which only the wife’s evidence in support of her requests for temporary alimony, attorney’s fees, and suit costs was heard, without allowing the husband an opportunity to present his case-in-chief, resulted in a denial of the husband’s due process rights. See, e.g., Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversing final divorce judgment because trial court violated wife’s due process rights by not giving her an opportunity to present her case-in-chief before ruling on the merits of the issues presented). On remand, the trial court is directed to conduct a de novo hearing on the wife’s temporary relief requests that were resolved by the predecessor judge in the order on review. The scope of the hearing on remand need not address the issue of temporary timesharing of the parties’ minor children as that issue was resolved by agreement of the parties during the temporary relief hearing. Reversed and remanded with instructions. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.