Messing v. Nieradka
230 So. 3d 962
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties married May 9, 2014; Husband filed for annulment Dec. 10, 2014 alleging no cohabitation or consummation. Wife answered and counterpetitioned, later amending to say she did not contest annulment but asked to proceed to dissolution if annulment grounds failed and she waived financial claims.
- Wife filed a motion to enforce a stipulation and later a motion for judgment on the pleadings with a notice of final hearing set for March 1, 2016. The parties submitted a joint stipulation agreeing to an annulment and that Wife would pay $1,500 of Husband’s attorney’s fees; the stipulation included Wife’s waiver of appearance.
- At the March 1 hearing, counsel for both parties attended but only the Wife (not the Husband) appeared after the court asked attorneys to contact their clients. The court sua sponte converted the hearing to an evidentiary hearing, swore the Wife, took testimony, rejected the stipulation, and, at the Wife’s ore tenus request, entered a final judgment of dissolution.
- The Husband was not given prior notice that the final hearing would be evidentiary and thus had no opportunity to prepare or attend; the trial court received evidence and ruled based solely on the Wife’s testimony.
- On appeal the Second District held that converting a noticed final hearing to an evidentiary hearing without notice and then taking evidence in the absent party’s absence violated the Husband’s procedural due process rights. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a properly noticed hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Messing) | Defendant's Argument (Nieradka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether converting a non‑evidentiary final hearing to an evidentiary hearing without prior notice violated due process | The court violated his right to notice and an opportunity to be heard by taking evidence and entering judgment while he was absent and unprepared | The Wife had filed a stipulation and waived appearance; the court acted on the Wife’s testimony and counterpetition after she appeared | Reversed: trial court violated due process by converting the hearing to an evidence hearing without notice and deciding the case on testimony of the only present party |
| Whether the parties’ stipulation required the court to enter annulment instead of dissolution | Stipulation called for annulment; Husband relied on that agreement and expected the court to sign it at the final hearing | Wife testified such that the court believed annulment could not be granted and sought dissolution relief | Court should have scheduled a properly noticed evidentiary hearing; failure to do so deprived Husband of opportunity to rebut evidence, so judgment vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Keys Citizens For Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2001) (procedural due process requires fair notice and real opportunity to be heard; standards depend on the proceeding)
- Dep't of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991) (due process requires notice and hearing)
- Trans Health Mgmt., Inc. v. Nunziata, 159 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (taking evidence at a hearing not noticed as evidentiary can violate due process)
- Wildwood Props., Inc. v. Archer of Vero Beach, Inc., 621 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (failure to give adequate notice that evidence will be taken violates due process)
- Jackson v. Leon Cty. Elections Canvassing Bd., 204 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (opportunity to be heard at evidentiary hearing requires time to prepare and secure witnesses)
- Crepage v. City of Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (notice given the day of hearing was inadequate for evidentiary presentation)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must reasonably convey required information and allow time to appear)