Peaslee v. Perrine

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peaslee v. Perrine

202 So. 3d 974, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16649

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-4059

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 3d 974 (Peaslee v. Perrine) 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

Peaslee v. Perrine, 202 So. 3d 974, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16649 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because Appellant’s Motion to Terminate/Vacate the Final Judgment of Injunction was legally sufficient by alleging facts demonstrating “changed circumstances” such that “the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose,” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we hold that the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before summarily denying his motion. See Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So.3d 522, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So.3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So.3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So.3d 932, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “ ‘[D]ue process requires that [the movant] be given [an] opportunity to be heard on his request— ’” Carrozza, 153 So.3d at 341 (quoting Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LEWIS, WETHERELL,. and JAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because Appellant’s Motion to Terminate/Vacate the Final Judgment of Injunction was legally sufficient by alleging facts demonstrating “changed circumstances” such that “the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose,” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we hold that the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before summarily denying his motion. See Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So.3d 522, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So.3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So.3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Goodwin v. Whitley, 103 So.3d 932, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “ ‘[D]ue process requires that [the movant] be given [an] opportunity to be heard on his request— ’” Carrozza, 153 So.3d at 341 (quoting Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LEWIS, WETHERELL,. and JAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 974, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peaslee-v-perrine-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack