State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Hicks v. Hicks

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Hicks v. Hicks

681 So. 2d 812, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10496, 1996 WL 577335

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1996

DocketNo. 95-04750

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 812 (State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Hicks v. Hicks) 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

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Hicks v. Hicks, 681 So. 2d 812, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10496, 1996 WL 577335 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order of visitation because “[i]t was plainly improper, and clearly in violation of the appellant’s due process rights, to hear and determine matters which were not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice.” Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accord Hully v. Hully, 653 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Our reversal is without prejudice to the appellee filing an appropriate pleading requesting the establishment of visitation rights, followed by a properly noticed hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order of visitation because “[i]t was plainly improper, and clearly in violation of the appellant’s due process rights, to hear and determine matters which were not the subject of appropriate pleadings or notice.” Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accord Hully v. Hully, 653 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Our reversal is without prejudice to the appellee filing an appropriate pleading requesting the establishment of visitation rights, followed by a properly noticed hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 812, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10496, 1996 WL 577335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-revenue-ex-rel-hicks-v-hicks-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack