Melton v. Melton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Melton v. Melton

811 So. 2d 862, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4081, 2002 WL 463725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-2143

StatusPublished

This text of 811 So. 2d 862 (Melton v. Melton) 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

Melton v. Melton, 811 So. 2d 862, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4081, 2002 WL 463725 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEUS, J.

Chuck A. Melton, the former husband, appearing pro se, appeals an amended permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence issued against him and entered in favor of his former wife. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).

A temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence was entered on May 14, 2001. A hearing for a permanent injunction took place on June 15, 2001, after the former wife alleged that Melton had violated the terms of the temporary injunction. Neither Melton nor his counsel, however, received notice of this hearing. Upon discovering a permanent injunction had been entered against him, Melton filed a Notice of Ex Parte Hearing in which he sought to have the injunction quashed. The trial court turned this ex parte hearing bn the motion to quash into a full evidentiary hearing for permanent injunctive relief.

We agree with Melton that the conversion of the hearing to have the injunction quashed into a full evidentiary hearing on a permanent injunction violated Melton’s due process rights. Jones v. Jones, 761 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (hearing held on motion to dissolve temporary injunction could not be expanded into hearing on validity of continuation of injunction consistent with due process principles); see also Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So.2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We vacate the permanent injunction and remand to the trial court for a properly noticed hearing on the petition for permanent injunc-tive relief.

INJUNCTION VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.

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

PLEUS, J.

Chuck A. Melton, the former husband, appearing pro se, appeals an amended permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence issued against him and entered in favor of his former wife. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).

A temporary injunction for protection against domestic violence was entered on May 14, 2001. A hearing for a permanent injunction took place on June 15, 2001, after the former wife alleged that Melton had violated the terms of the temporary injunction. Neither Melton nor his counsel, however, received notice of this hearing. Upon discovering a permanent injunction had been entered against him, Melton filed a Notice of Ex Parte Hearing in which he sought to have the injunction quashed. The trial court turned this ex parte hearing bn the motion to quash into a full evidentiary hearing for permanent injunctive relief.

We agree with Melton that the conversion of the hearing to have the injunction quashed into a full evidentiary hearing on a permanent injunction violated Melton’s due process rights. Jones v. Jones, 761 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (hearing held on motion to dissolve temporary injunction could not be expanded into hearing on validity of continuation of injunction consistent with due process principles); see also Murphy v. Ridgard, 757 So.2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We vacate the permanent injunction and remand to the trial court for a properly noticed hearing on the petition for permanent injunc-tive relief.

INJUNCTION VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 So. 2d 862, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4081, 2002 WL 463725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melton-v-melton-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack