J. LEONARD FLEET, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA ANN FLEET, 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.
In this family law appeal, both spouses appealed from the trial court's dismissal of their respective modification petitions. The court reversed, holding that the trial judge erred in dismissing the petitions before allowing either party to complete their presentation of evidence and properly adjudicate the claims.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the husband was entitled to complete his presentation of evidence before the court could deny his petition on equitable grounds such as unclean hands, and that the wife was entitled to a hearing on her petition alleging fraud in prior applications, which is authorized under Florida Rule 1.540(b) even beyond the typical one-year period.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss a party's petition based on the "unclean hands" doctrine without affording that party an opportunity to present evidence and complete their…
[2] A party is entitled to a hearing on a petition alleging fraud upon the court, even if the alleged fraud occurred in past applications, as Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rul…
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 husband is entitled to complete his presentation of evidence before the court determines what action should be taken on the petition, including denial thereof on grounds of 'unclean hands' if such be the conclusion of the court after the hearing has been completed.”
Establishes the core holding that a party must be allowed to present evidence before dismissal on equitable grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a final hearing on the husband's petition for modification and the wife's counterpetition, the trial court discovered the husband had violated …
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 Final Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal by both parties from the trial court’s order dismissing and denying petitions for modifications of both the husband and wife. We reverse.
During the course of a final hearing on the husband’s petition for modification and the wife’s counterpetition, the trial court discovered that the husband had failed to comply with a previous order of the court. At that point the court stated that he was dismissing the husband’s petition on the basis that the husband had “unclean hands.” At the same time, the trial court stated that he was dismissing the wife’s petition for modification also. The husband was not given an opportunity to explain his failure to comply with the previous order, and neither party was given an opportunity to complete the presentation of their evidence.
The record clearly supports the trial court’s finding that the husband had violated the terms of a previous court order. However, we feel the husband is entitled to complete his presentation of evidence before the court determines what action should be taken on the petition, including denial thereof on grounds of “unclean hands” if such be the conclusion of the court after the hearing has been completed.
The wife’s petition was also denied before the completion of her case. In essence the wife was claiming that the husband had been guilty of fraud in past applications to the trial court which had resulted in modifications favorable to the husband. The trial court apparently felt the wife had not timely raised the issue of fraud. Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes an action based upon fraud upon the court even beyond the usual one year period that relief may be obtained from a judgment. Accordingly, we feel the wife is entitled to a hearing on her petition.
The wife has also appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Since the trial of this cause has not been completed it would be premature to determine the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. That determination should properly be made at the conclusion of the final hearing.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions that a final hearing be conducted in accordance with this opinion.
MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cain v. Cain, 436 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…arrearage existed. Appellant makes no argument that the trial court deprived him of the opportunity to explain his failure to comply with previous orders. Therefore we are not confronted with the situation that existed in the case of Fleet v. Fleet, 345 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). It is well settled that the doctrine of “clean hands” permits a judge sitting in equity to refuse to grant a petition for modification of a support decree when the petitioner is in arrears. [1]t is said that, based on the…