De Leon v. Collazo
178 So. 3d 906
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- De Leon and Collazo had a long-term relationship (1997–2010) and three children; Collazo filed a sworn petition for a domestic-violence injunction in Sept. 2010.
- The petition included specific allegations of abuse and a temporary injunction was entered and extended through a final hearing in June 2013.
- At the final hearing Collazo testified to six additional, significant acts of violence (e.g., punching causing black eyes and split lip, kicking during pregnancy, death threats, alleged child abuse, and miscarriages attributed to defendant) that were not pleaded in the sworn petition.
- De Leon objected and moved to strike the unpled testimony for lack of notice; the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the testimony.
- The trial court later entered a permanent injunction; De Leon appealed, arguing admission of unpled allegations violated his due-process right to notice and opportunity to prepare.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the admission and consideration of substantial unpled allegations over objection deprived De Leon of procedural due process, vacated the permanent injunction, reissued the temporary injunction, and remanded for a new final hearing (on the existing or a properly amended petition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by admitting and considering testimony about unpled acts of domestic violence | Collazo: testimony is admissible and appellate court should presume judge relied only on admissible evidence | De Leon: admission of unpled, substantial allegations deprived him of notice and fair opportunity to defend | Court: admission over objection violated due process; cannot presume judge disregarded evidence without an express on-record disavowal; reversal required |
| Whether appellant forfeited review by failing to seek interlocutory review of temporary injunction extension | Collazo: failure to seek interlocutory review precludes appeal of nonfinal extension order | De Leon: not required to seek interlocutory review; may appeal after final judgment | Court: appellant was not required to seek interlocutory review; argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties and allow them to present objections)
- Dep’t of Law Enf’t v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991) (procedural due process ensures fair treatment in adjudication of substantive rights)
- Town of Jupiter v. Andreff, 656 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (adequate notice should indicate witnesses and evidence to be used to obtain relief)
- Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (petition must include specific facts supporting requested injunctive relief)
- Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2010) (in bench trials, inadmissible evidence admitted over objection requires an express on-record statement that it did not contribute to judgment)
- E.M. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (trial court’s failure to disavow reliance on improperly admitted evidence precludes presumption that it was disregarded)