FRANK L. BARREIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA BARREIRO, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's order expanding an emergency hearing beyond its noticed scope to address child support, visitation, and property matters without proper pleadings or notice to the husband, violating due process rights.
A trial court violates due process by hearing and determining matters not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice, even in an emergency hearing context.
[1] A trial court violates due process by hearing and determining matters not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice, even when acting in an emergency hearing context…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It was plainly improper, and clearly in violation of the appellant's due process rights, to hear and determine matters which were not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice.”
Court's statement of the legal error committed by the trial judge in expanding the emergency hearing scope.
The trial judge expanded an emergency hearing set only for the wife's motion to enforce out-of-state summer visitation to include temporary child supp…
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 Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Without prior notice, without appropriate pleadings, and over the objection of the husband, the trial judge expanded the scope of an “emergency hearing” which had been set only upon the wife’s motion for the enforcement of out-of-state summer visitation with the parties’ son, who was in his father’s custody. The court thereafter provided, among other things, for temporary child support, transportation costs, grandparents’ visitation, the terms of the wife’s subsequent visitation, and the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the appellee on the proceeds of property which she had conveyed to the husband pursuant to a property settlement agreement six years before. In so doing, the lower court was in palpable error. It was plainly improper, and clearly in violation of the appellant’s due process rights, to hea.r and determine matters which were not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and cases cited; Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and cases cited. Accordingly, with the sole exception of paragraph 1, which dealt with the summer visitation issue, the order of July 25, 1979 under review is, in its entirety,
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…t for the purpose of granting affirmative relief to the respondent-husband. A trial court violates a litigant’s due process rights when it expands the scope of a hearing to address and determine matters not noticed for hearing. Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Johnson v. Henck, 482 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Christie v. Casaday, 486 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Levitt v. Levitt, 454 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Further, the existence of a separate extra-judicial agreement b…
-
Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…his order was entered in derogation of the due process rights of the parties1 in that (1) it determined matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings, Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); (2) to the limited extent that it determined matters noticed for hearing and properly before the court, it was entered without providing the parties a full and fair opportuni…
-
Perez v. Perez, 519 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…uirements of due process, Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Heritage Casket & Vault Ind., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1957); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (c) that portion of the judgment granting “custody” of the parties’ child was plainly erroneous both because the complaint did not comply with section 61.1308 or 61.132, Fl…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Weaver v. Masanotti, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)