Harreld v. Harreld, 95-01444
| Decision Date | 01 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-01444,95-01444 |
| Citation | 682 So.2d 635 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2356 Jack D. HARRELD, Appellant, v. Katherine L. HARRELD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stann W. Givens of Knox and Givens, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellee.
Jack Harreld challenges both the final order dissolving his marriage to Katherine Harreld and an order finding him in contempt, contending that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing that resulted in the entry of the orders. He also contests the order of dissolution on the basis that it does not contain the statutorily required findings of fact to support the equitable distribution of the parties' assets and the award of alimony to his wife. We find merit in both his contentions, and reverse.
On Friday, December 2, 1994, the wife served the husband at his business address, by mail and by fax, with her motion for contempt and a combined notice of hearing on her petition for dissolution and the contempt motion. The hearing was set for Tuesday, December 6, 1994. At the time, Mr. Harreld was not represented by counsel and lived in Memphis, Tennessee. We know that the former husband received the motion for contempt because on December 3, 1994, he served his "motion for continuance and response to petitioner's motion dated 12/2/94." The motion did not specifically mention the hearing scheduled for December 6th, but referred to the husband's previous request for continuance of the pretrial conference, filed November 28, 1994, and asked the court "for a continuance in these matters to allow sufficient time to prepare adequate response for the motions filed...." The husband claimed, in a sworn motion filed after his notice of appeal, that he never received the combined notice of hearing.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(d) requires that notice of a hearing "be served a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing." While there are no hard and fast rules about how many days constitute a "reasonable time," the party served with notice must have actual notice and time to prepare. State Dept. of Transp. v. Plunske, 267 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
We understand the trial court's frustration with the husband in this case. The court has entered at least three orders of contempt against him for failure to pay temporary alimony and failure to provide discovery. The husband had, however, asked the court for a continuance of the pretrial conference so that he might obtain local counsel. Apparently, the court never ruled on this motion. Even if we assume Mr. Harreld received the notice of hearing by fax on December 2, 1994, we hold the lower court abused its discretion in finding that he had adequate notice of the proceedings on December 6, 1994. While we do not draw a bright line as to what amount of notice is reasonable, we hold that two working days' notice of a contested final hearing in a dissolution action where the husband resides outside the state and is not represented by counsel is insufficient. See Anderson v. Suntrust Bank/North, 679 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ().
Because our reversal will result in a hearing and new final order of dissolution in this matter, we will also discuss the deficiencies in the present order. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), addresses the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. It requires the trial court to "begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal...." § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). The final judgment here awards all the marital assets, except one-half of any pension the husband may have, to the wife. In order to justify a departure from the statute's instruction that the distribution be equal, the trial court must analyze all relevant factors, including the ten set out in section 61.075(1)(a) through (j). The court must provide a legally sufficient factual basis for its distribution in the final judgment. Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The only finding in the final order here that could be read as an explanation of the court's unequal distribution of the assets is that "the husband, in direct violation of this Court's Order has liquidated numerous items of marital property, including stocks and life insurance policies." See § 61.075(1)(i), Fla.Stat. (1993). The court, however, did not specifically state this was the reason it was distributing the marital assets unequally. Moreover, the final judgment awards all the liquidated assets, or their proceeds, to the wife.
A related problem with the equitable distribution in the present order is that the court did not value the assets. Under section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JB v. Department of Children and Family Services
...986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that two days' notice of a final hearing on a contested adoption was insufficient); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that two days' notice was not sufficient for a final hearing in a contested dissolution of marriage case). As pr......
-
JB v. FLA. DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAM. SERVICES
...changes in the statutes governing dependency proceedings should eliminate the problem that arose in this case. 1.See Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Montgomery v. Cribb, 484 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reynolds v. ......
-
Crepage v. City of Lauderhill, 4D99-3271.
...have actual notice and time to prepare." State Dep't. of Transp. v. Plunske, 267 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Courts have not hesitated in finding notice violations when important interests were at stake. See, e.g., Harreld, 682 S......
-
Woolf v. Woolf, 4D04-3403.
...Two days notice is insufficient notice of a contempt hearing. Goral v. State, 553 So.2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also J.B. v. Fla. Dep't. of Children and Family Servs., 768 So.2d 1060, 1066 (Fla.2000) (noting that two days noti......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...value of asset, trial court may presume asset is insignificant; therefore, failure to distribute asset is not error); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court erred in distributing all of marital assets to wife without making findings of fact to justify unequal dis......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...and record contained no evidence of when loan was incurred, so it could not be classified as marital liability); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(trial court erred in distributing all of marital assets to wife without making findings of fact to justify unequal distribut......
-
Florida family law rules of procedure
...notice of contested hearing (contempt and dissolution of marriage) was insufficient notice for out of state party. Harreld v. Harreld , 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE 18-25 Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 18.13 Werntz v. Floyd Although the rules provid......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...of and time to prepare for a contested hearing,” citing Dileo v. Dileo, 939 So.2d 181, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) and Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). [Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that two days’ notice of contempt hearing provided to former ......