Woolley v. Nelsen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woolley v. Nelsen

183 So. 3d 476, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 660, 2016 WL 231773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2016

Docket2D15-1684

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 So. 3d 476 (Woolley v. Nelsen) 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

Woolley v. Nelsen, 183 So. 3d 476, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 660, 2016 WL 231773 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

KHOUZAM, Judge.

In 2009, Angela Nelson acquired a dating violence protective injunction against Joshua Woolley. In March 2015, Woolley filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging that he had been convicted of unrelated criminal charges and had begun serving his ten-and-twelve year sentences resulting from those convictions. He argued that the injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to his incarceration and that the injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a facility closer to home. Six days later, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Woolley appealed, arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without first holding a hearing.

We agree that Woolley is entitled to a hearing on his motion. “Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So.3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). And based on the allegations in Woolley’s motion, he may be entitled to relief. See Baker v. Baker, 112 So.3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that domestic violence injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to movant’s lengthy incarceration). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Woolley’s motion and remand for a hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

KHOUZAM, Judge.

In 2009, Angela Nelson acquired a dating violence protective injunction against Joshua Woolley. In March 2015, Woolley filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging that he had been convicted of unrelated criminal charges and had begun serving his ten-and-twelve year sentences resulting from those convictions. He argued that the injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to his incarceration and that the injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a facility closer to home. Six days later, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Woolley appealed, arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without first holding a hearing.

We agree that Woolley is entitled to a hearing on his motion. “Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So.3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). And based on the allegations in Woolley’s motion, he may be entitled to relief. See Baker v. Baker, 112 So.3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that domestic violence injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to movant’s lengthy incarceration). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Woolley’s motion and remand for a hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 476, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 660, 2016 WL 231773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolley-v-nelsen-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack