Christiansen v. Christiansen, 77-2387
| Decision Date | 07 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2387,77-2387 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 1254 |
| Parties | Dorothy A. CHRISTIANSEN, Appellant, v. Lyle C. CHRISTIANSEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank R. S. Fabre, Orlando, for appellant.
Mack N. Cleveland, Jr., Sanford, for appellee.
On October 6 and 7, 1977, appellant filed a motion and an amended motion for temporary relief, requesting temporary alimony, attorneys' fees and suit money. On October 14, 1977, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. That order is the subject of this interlocutory appeal.
In the order denying the motion for temporary relief the court pointed out that the motion was accompanied by a large quantity of exhibits some of which were irrelevant. The court also noted that appellant had already had several other temporary hearings before the court not involving alimony, attorneys' fees or suit money.
We are entirely sympathetic with trial judges, often laboring as they do under impossible docket conditions. And we agree that litigants should strive to economize on court time by requesting as few temporary hearings as possible commensurate with the requirements of their cases. However, there is no prohibition against more than one temporary hearing in a domestic relations case and it often is the case that some immediate temporary relief pending the litigation is required before the evidence is available to consider financial allowances.
We find nothing in this record (and unfortunately appellee has not favored us with a brief in support of the trial court's order) which would preclude appellant from at least having a hearing on her application for funds with which to carry on the litigation and sustain herself until final hearing.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to allow appellant a hearing on her motion for temporary alimony, attorneys' fees and suit money.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fickle v. Adkins
...it was entered without providing the parties a full and fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence, Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So.2d 737 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reject Adkins' contention that the trial court's order was a......
-
Green v. Green's Baptist Temple Inc., 81-293
...full and fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA Reversed and remanded. ...
-
Bolton v. Bolton, 84-834
...hearing violated the husband's due process rights. We agree. Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Christiansen v. Christiansen, 354 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the trial judge conduct a hearing, upon due notice to both parties,......
- Sykes v. Wainwright, 77-2286