Raymonvil v. Lewis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raymonvil v. Lewis

46 So. 3d 139, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149, 2010 WL 4136051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 2010

Docket5D10-827

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 46 So. 3d 139 (Raymonvil v. Lewis) 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

Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149, 2010 WL 4136051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

Raymonvil appeals from an order denying his motion for modification of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The injunction was entered in July 2006 and was to remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. In his motion, filed in February 2010, Ray-monvil sufficiently alleged that circumstances had changed since the entry of the injunction. Specifically, Raymonvil alleged that he had not had contact with the petitioner, was presently incarcerated, and the injunction was impacting his ability to participate in a work-release program. Ray-monvil further claimed that he had stipulated to the entry of the injunction based on an agreement that the injunction would expire after one year. The trial court denied the motion without affording Ray-monvil the opportunity for a hearing. No reasons were given for the denial.

The trial court’s summary denial of Ray-monvil’s motion violated due process requirements. See, e.g., Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because Raymonvil’s motion *140 was legally sufficient, the trial court was required to afford him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.

ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

Raymonvil appeals from an order denying his motion for modification of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The injunction was entered in July 2006 and was to remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. In his motion, filed in February 2010, Ray-monvil sufficiently alleged that circumstances had changed since the entry of the injunction. Specifically, Raymonvil alleged that he had not had contact with the petitioner, was presently incarcerated, and the injunction was impacting his ability to participate in a work-release program. Ray-monvil further claimed that he had stipulated to the entry of the injunction based on an agreement that the injunction would expire after one year. The trial court denied the motion without affording Ray-monvil the opportunity for a hearing. No reasons were given for the denial.

The trial court’s summary denial of Ray-monvil’s motion violated due process requirements. See, e.g., Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because Raymonvil’s motion *140 was legally sufficient, the trial court was required to afford him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.

ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 So. 3d 139, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149, 2010 WL 4136051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymonvil-v-lewis-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack