Latoyia S. Bailey Giddins, Wife v. Jabriel K. Giddins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Latoyia S. Bailey Giddins, Wife v. Jabriel K. Giddins

151 So. 3d 54

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket1D14-0653

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 54 (Latoyia S. Bailey Giddins, Wife v. Jabriel K. Giddins) 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

Latoyia S. Bailey Giddins, Wife v. Jabriel K. Giddins, 151 So. 3d 54 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant, the former wife, challenges the trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage in which the court adopted and incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Appellant argues the court erred in entering the final order over her objection and pending motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement, without first giving her the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. We agree. The trial court should have either permitted appellant to present argument and evidence contesting the adoption of the marital settlement agreement during the hearing on the former husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, or alternatively, the court should have deferred entering a final judgment until a hearing on appellant’s motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement had been held. ‘“Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, ... and the denial of this right is fundamental error.’ ” Slotnick v. Slotnick, 891 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Thus, we reverse the final order of dissolution of marriage and remand for further proceedings. Because we reverse, we find it unnecessary to address the second issue raised by appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant, the former wife, challenges the trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage in which the court adopted and incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Appellant argues the court erred in entering the final order over her objection and pending motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement, without first giving her the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. We agree. The trial court should have either permitted appellant to present argument and evidence contesting the adoption of the marital settlement agreement during the hearing on the former husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, or alternatively, the court should have deferred entering a final judgment until a hearing on appellant’s motion to set aside the marital settlement agreement had been held. ‘“Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to testify and call witnesses on his behalf, ... and the denial of this right is fundamental error.’ ” Slotnick v. Slotnick, 891 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Thus, we reverse the final order of dissolution of marriage and remand for further proceedings. Because we reverse, we find it unnecessary to address the second issue raised by appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROWE and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latoyia-s-bailey-giddins-wife-v-jabriel-k-giddins-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack