Brennan v. Paul Barabas Interiors

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brennan v. Paul Barabas Interiors

357 So. 2d 746, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1978

DocketNo. 77-2612

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 So. 2d 746 (Brennan v. Paul Barabas Interiors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brennan v. Paul Barabas Interiors, 357 So. 2d 746, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find that the petitioner, Eileen M. Brennan, did not receive timely notice of a hearing to determine her right to unemployment compensation benefits. After her counsel filed a notice of appearance and a written request that any notice of hearing be directed to counsel, the Department of Commerce scheduled a hearing without notifying counsel. A copy of the notice was sent to the petitioner’s home address, but it is undisputed that the petitioner was away from her residence at the time the notice was sent through the time of the subsequent hearing. When a default order was received by the petitioner, her counsel sought a rehearing on the grounds set out above. The rehearing was denied. Since there was a written request for notice to counsel in the Department’s file at the time the notice was sent to the petitioner’s residence, we believe she is entitled to a new hearing. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted; and the decision of the Department of Commerce Board of Review is quashed with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALDERMAN, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We find that the petitioner, Eileen M. Brennan, did not receive timely notice of a hearing to determine her right to unemployment compensation benefits. After her counsel filed a notice of appearance and a written request that any notice of hearing be directed to counsel, the Department of Commerce scheduled a hearing without notifying counsel. A copy of the notice was sent to the petitioner’s home address, but it is undisputed that the petitioner was away from her residence at the time the notice was sent through the time of the subsequent hearing. When a default order was received by the petitioner, her counsel sought a rehearing on the grounds set out above. The rehearing was denied. Since there was a written request for notice to counsel in the Department’s file at the time the notice was sent to the petitioner’s residence, we believe she is entitled to a new hearing. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted; and the decision of the Department of Commerce Board of Review is quashed with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALDERMAN, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 So. 2d 746, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennan-v-paul-barabas-interiors-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack