From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malzahn v. Malzahn

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 26, 1989
541 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-3448.

April 26, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Paul M. Marko, III, J.

Regina F. Zelonker of Scherman Zelonker, P.A., Hialeah, (withdrawn as counsel after filing brief), for appellant.

Bob Zwicky, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's motion to vacate. After securing a temporary restraining order on November 18, 1988, without notice to the appellant, the appellee scheduled a hearing on temporary support for November 22, 1988. Appellant was served dissolution suit papers on the same day, November 22, 1988, and, according to a subsequently filed motion to vacate was unable to secure the services of an attorney, prepare for, and attend the hearing because of the lack of notice. The trial court entered an order granting temporary relief and, when the appellant filed a motion to vacate the order because of lack of reasonable notice and because the amounts of support ordered were grossly excessive, the trial court refused to permit an evidentiary hearing. We believe this was error.

The appellant was entitled to reasonable notice of the hearing on temporary support. See Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1970); Hayman v. Hayman, 522 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Hart v. Hart, 458 So.2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Devoe and Raynolds Co. v. KDS Paint Co., 382 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard are at the heart of the due process required by our system of justice. There are no allegations of irreparable harm or emergency set out in the appellee's request for temporary relief that justify denying appellant reasonable notice.

We stop short of directing that the order of temporary support be vacated. However, we remand this cause with directions that appellant be given the opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate so that he will have a fair opportunity to contest the provisions of the temporary support order and demonstrate the prejudice suffered by lack of reasonable notice.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Malzahn v. Malzahn

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 26, 1989
541 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Malzahn v. Malzahn

Case Details

Full title:JACK MALZAHN, APPELLANT, v. LILLIAM MALZAHN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 26, 1989

Citations

541 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp.

Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to "have a fair opportunity to contest" the…

Sawaya v. Thompson

As this Court explained in Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), "the…