Montemarano v. Montemarano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montemarano v. Montemarano

792 So. 2d 573, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10341, 2001 WL 830653

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 24, 2001·No. No. 4D01-2807·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We treat Appellant’s petition as a request for appellate review of a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence and reverse the portion of the order requiring Appellant to vacate the premises. Due process requires that a party receive notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of an order that affects her interests. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 384 (Fla.1957); Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), Appellee did not seek exclusive use and possession of the residence.

That portion of the trial court is quashed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We treat Appellant’s petition as a request for appellate review of a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence and reverse the portion of the order requiring Appellant to vacate the premises. Due process requires that a party receive notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of an order that affects her interests. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 384 (Fla.1957); Szymanski v. Szymanski, 603 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), Appellee did not seek exclusive use and possession of the residence.

That portion of the trial court is quashed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Montemarano v. Montemarano, 792 So. 2d 573, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10341, 2001 WL 830653 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

792 So. 2d 573 (Montemarano v. Montemarano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related