Potchen v. Potchen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Potchen v. Potchen

200 So. 3d 178, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10156, 2016 WL 3569910

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 2016

Docket5D15-2602

StatusPublished

This text of 200 So. 3d 178 (Potchen v. Potchen) 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

Potchen v. Potchen, 200 So. 3d 178, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10156, 2016 WL 3569910 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this domestic violence injunction case, Robert Potchen appeals an order modifying a permanent injunction to allow his wife to enter the marital home and retrieve her possessions. Although the order seems appropriate, Appellant is correct that he was denied due process when the lower court failed to act on his request to appear by telephone from prison. See, *179 e.g., Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So.3d 928, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephonically.”); Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So.2d 399, 401-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“When a party is incarcerated and cannot physically appear in a civil matter, the trial court normally should grant a request to hold necessary hearings by telephone, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071 [now 2.530], as an alternative to requiring that the inmate be transported to the hearing by the state.” (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))); see also Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A nonmoving party must be afforded a hearing before an injunction may be amended;”). As such, we reverse and remand with directions that Appellant be given an opportunity to be heard on the motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LAWSON, C.J., LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this domestic violence injunction case, Robert Potchen appeals an order modifying a permanent injunction to allow his wife to enter the marital home and retrieve her possessions. Although the order seems appropriate, Appellant is correct that he was denied due process when the lower court failed to act on his request to appear by telephone from prison. See, *179 e.g., Garrett v. Pratt, 128 So.3d 928, 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“An incarcerated party has a right to be heard in civil matters if the party has brought to the court’s attention his or her desire to appear personally or telephonically.”); Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So.2d 399, 401-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“When a party is incarcerated and cannot physically appear in a civil matter, the trial court normally should grant a request to hold necessary hearings by telephone, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071 [now 2.530], as an alternative to requiring that the inmate be transported to the hearing by the state.” (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))); see also Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A nonmoving party must be afforded a hearing before an injunction may be amended;”). As such, we reverse and remand with directions that Appellant be given an opportunity to be heard on the motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LAWSON, C.J., LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 178, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10156, 2016 WL 3569910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potchen-v-potchen-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack