Cox v. Deacon

82 So. 3d 827, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4788, 2011 WL 1261104
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 6, 2011·No. No. 4D09-4993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dissolve a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. He claims that he did not have notice and opportunity to be heard on the motion, but the record belies this contention. He was given notice of the final hearing, and he was handed a copy of the final judgment in court, for which he signed a receipt.1 Additionally, appellant argues that the permanent injunction entered pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes, was improper because it was for a period of more than a year. Although at one time there was a statutory provision that limited permanent injunctions to a period of one year, that provision was removed by the legislature in 1997. The current statute as amended provides for an injunction to “remain in effect until modified or dissolved.” § 741.30(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010); see also Miguez v. Miguez, 824 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d [828] DCA 2002). The court did not err in refusing to dissolve the injunction.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Footnotes

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

Cox v. Deacon, 82 So. 3d 827, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4788, 2011 WL 1261104 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

82 So. 3d 827 (Cox v. Deacon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bacchus v. Bacchus
108 So. 3d 712 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)