Vernon Ray Newsom, Jr. v. Karen Newsom
221 So. 3d 1265
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Former spouses divorced in 2011; in 2016 the former wife petitioned for a permanent domestic-violence injunction alleging the husband threatened to kill her and disparaged her to their daughter.
- Hearing was noticed; wife and husband's counsel attended but husband was absent and counsel did not know his whereabouts.
- Counsel asked for a short continuance; the trial court denied the request and declined counsel’s offer to argue legal issues about sufficiency of the alleged threat.
- The court asked only whether the parties were divorced and whether the wife still wanted an injunction; wife said yes and the court entered a final permanent injunction under section 741.30.
- Husband moved for rehearing asserting excusable tardiness and lack of evidentiary support; the motion was denied.
- On appeal the First DCA reversed and remanded, holding the entry of a final injunction without giving the husband an opportunity to be heard and without evidentiary support violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of a final permanent injunction without the respondent present or heard violated due process | Newsom (wife) implied court could proceed and her presence sufficed | Husband argued he was deprived of a hearing and due process when injunction entered in his absence | Reversed: Respondent must have reasonable opportunity to be heard; entry without hearing violated due process |
| Whether the evidence presented at the hearing supported the injunction | Wife relied on her oral statement that she still wanted protection | Husband argued no evidence was offered to prove the alleged threat or meet petitioner’s burden | Reversed: Wife’s mere statement was insufficient; injunction lacked evidentiary support |
| Whether a threat to kill alone can support an injunction (decided?) | Wife argued alleged threats justified relief | Husband contended threats without further acts were legally insufficient | Court declined to decide this issue, finding reversal unnecessary because of procedural and evidentiary defects |
| Whether denial of counsel’s request to argue legal sufficiency was proper | Wife implicitly supported proceeding without further argument | Husband asserted denial foreclosed meaningful defense | Court found overall procedure denied fair hearing and remanded for full evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johns v. Johns, 101 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (respondent entitled to a fair hearing and protection from injunctions lacking evidentiary support)
- Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (due process requires opportunity to prove or disprove allegations)
- Parise v. Selph, 175 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversal where respondent deprived of due process in entry of final injunction)
- Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (each party must have reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove allegations)
- Mantell v. Rocke, 179 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (reversing where no evidence was introduced to support domestic-violence injunction)