Michael Vaught v. Kathleen Vaught
189 So. 3d 332
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wife filed petitions for domestic violence injunction alleging stalking and property destruction; court initially denied temporary relief but allowed supplementation and set a final hearing for Sept. 3, 2014.
- Wife filed a supplemental affidavit on Aug. 27, 2014 that included new allegations of physical abuse not present in the original petition.
- The supplemental affidavit was not shown on its face to have been served on Husband; Husband received notice of the final hearing on Aug. 27 or 28, 2014 (Labor Day fell between notice and hearing).
- At the Sept. 3 final hearing Wife (with counsel) testified to the physical-abuse allegations; Husband proceeded pro se, requested a continuance, and said he had not prepared for these new allegations.
- Trial court denied continuance, heard evidence, and entered a final injunction effective through Dec. 31, 2015; Husband moved for rehearing asserting lack of time to retain counsel and was denied.
- The Fourth District reversed, finding procedural-due-process errors based on unserved supplemental allegations and insufficient notice/denial of continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Vaught (Wife) Argument | Vaught (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of allegations in an unserved supplemental affidavit violated due process | Evidence supports injunction; new affidavit related to petition and was permissible | Supplemental affidavit raised new, material allegations unknown to Husband; he lacked notice and preparation time | Court reversed: unserved supplemental affidavit alleging new abuse deprived Husband of due process |
| Whether notice/short time before final hearing and denial of continuance violated due process | Hearing date was set properly; no emergency; evidence justified proceeding | Husband received notice only a few business days before hearing (holiday shortened time) and requested continuance to prepare/obtain counsel | Court reversed: insufficient notice (few business days) and denial of continuance deprived Husband of due process |
| Whether Husband preserved due process claim on appeal | Wife argued sufficiency of evidence; claim not pressed below | Husband, pro se, objected and sought continuance; record sufficed to preserve due-process issue | Court found issue preserved given pro se status and record; reached merits and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (reversed injunction where petitioner introduced material allegations at final hearing that were not in served petition and respondent lacked notice)
- De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (admission of unpled allegations at final hearing deprived respondent of due process)
- Storm v. Decker, 971 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (notice of final hearing provided only three business days before hearing and denial of continuance violated due process)
- Residential Mortg. Serv. Corp. v. Winterlakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, 169 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standard: de novo review for procedural due process challenges)