Miller v. Miller, 691 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Miller, 691 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Kilnapp v. Kilnapp (fladistctapp, 2014-06-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kilnapp v. Kilnapp
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So.3d 605, 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“When a court fails to give one party the opportunity to present witnesses or testify on his or her own behalf, the court has violated that party’s fundamental right to procedural due process.”); see also Adili v. Adili 913 So.2d 1240, 1240-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing an injunction for protection against domestic violence where the court heard only from the wife and her witnesses and ruled in the wife’s favor before allowing the husband to present any witnesses or evidence); Pope v. Pope, 901 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 1st D…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zodiac Records Inc. v. Choice Environmental Services
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“None of the elements involved in the notion of procedural due process has greater importance than the right to be heard.” Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The right is one afforded to both parties, and here such an opportunity was due Mr. Smith. "`None of the elements involved in the notion of procedural due process has greater importance than the right to be heard.'" Pope v. Pope, 901 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding daughter's due process rights were violated when injunction was modified without a hearing); see also Adili v. Adili, 913 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing an injunction for pr…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adili v. Adili
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Pope v. Pope, 901 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Semple v. Semple
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
The witnesses should be sworn, each party should be permitted to call witnesses with relevant information, and cross-examination should be permitted); Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(section 741.30 does not contemplate the extension of a temporary injunction for a long period, nor the entry of a permanent injunction without a full hearing).
cited Cited "see" Sanchez v. Alviar
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Pope v. Pope, 901 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Pope v. Pope
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see, e.g." ROBERTO SANCHEZ III v. MICHELLE M. SAENZ
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Bacchus, 108 So. 3d at 716 ; see also Miller v. Miller, 691 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matthew P. MILLER, Appellant,
v.
Mary Karen MILLER, Appellee.
97-0478.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 27, 1997.
691 So. 2d 528
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

David A. Riggs of Hunt, Cook, Riggs, Mehr & Miller, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

[*529] John A. Kovarik, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Matthew P. Miller appeals an order entering a six-month injunction for protection against domestic violence under section 741.30, Florida Statutes, restraining and enjoining him from domestic violence against his wife, Mary Karen Miller, excluding him from their residence, and awarding the wife temporary custody of the parties' minor child, allowing the husband only limited supervised visitation, and ordering him to pay temporary child support. We reverse.

The record indicates, and the wife does not dispute, that the ex parte injunction contained notice to the husband to attend a hearing on the petition for injunction for protection. However, at that hearing the court refused the husband's attempts to offer evidence and cross-examine the wife, insisting instead that the hearing was not an evidentiary hearing but was on the wife's petition for an extension of the ex parte temporary injunction, which had been granted based on her verified petition. Again, the record does not indicate that the wife filed any petition for extension or gave the husband notice of such a petition, nor does the wife suggest that she did. Without requiring the wife to make any showing of good cause for the extension, see § 741.30(5)(c), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1996), and without stating good cause on its own motion, see Fla.Fam. L.R.P. 12.610(c)(4)(A), the court then extended the temporary injunction for a six-month period and issued what appears to be a final judgment on the petition, or a permanent injunction.

None of the elements involved in the notion of procedural due process has greater importance than the right to be heard. DSA Marine Sales & Serv., Inc. v. County of Manatee, 661 So.2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On no more than the wife's bare verified petition, with no opportunity to contest her allegations, the husband has been restrained from his home and his child for a six-month period. Section 741.30 does not contemplate the extension of a temporary injunction for such a period, nor the entry of a permanent injunction without a full hearing.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court promptly to conduct a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 741.30(5)(c) and rule 12.610(c)(1)(B).

REVERSE and REMAND.

GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.