From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCormick v. Shannon

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 5, 2010
32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

holding that the trial court erred by summarily denying a motion to dissolve an injunction alleging that movant had unfailingly complied with the order, that movant had no interest in contacting the victim, and that the injunction prevented movant from participating in a prison work program

Summary of this case from Bork v. Pare

Opinion

No. 2D09-2362.

May 5, 2010.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick H. Hardt, Judge.

David Ray McCormick, pro se.

No appearance by Appellee Bridget M. Shannon.


In 2002, Bridget Shannon obtained a permanent injunction against David Ray McCormick for protection against repeat violence. In 2009, Mr. McCormick filed a motion to vacate the injunction order. He alleged that he had unfailingly complied with the injunction order, that he had no interest in contacting Ms. Shannon, and that the injunction prevented him from participating in certain prison work programs while under state supervision. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Mr. McCormick appealed, arguing that he should have been given an evidentiary 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. Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Betterman v. Kukelhan, 977 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Reed v. Reed, 816 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Madan v. Madan, 729 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Because the trial court erred in summarily denying Mr. McCormick's motion, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

McCormick v. Shannon

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 5, 2010
32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

holding that the trial court erred by summarily denying a motion to dissolve an injunction alleging that movant had unfailingly complied with the order, that movant had no interest in contacting the victim, and that the injunction prevented movant from participating in a prison work program

Summary of this case from Bork v. Pare
Case details for

McCormick v. Shannon

Case Details

Full title:David Ray McCORMICK, Appellant, v. Bridget M. SHANNON, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 5, 2010

Citations

32 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Woolley v. Nelsen

“Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity…

McFarr v. McKee

However, due process requires that the trial court afford McFarr a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the…