Johnson v. Johnson, 1D07-5377.
Decision Date | 15 October 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 1D07-5377.,1D07-5377. |
Citation | 992 So.2d 399 |
Parties | Joe JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Shakira JOHNSON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joe Johnson, pro se, Appellant.
Brian Norback, Legal Services of N. Fla., Inc., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee.
Joe Johnson, an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, appeals the order dissolving his marriage to Shakira Johnson on grounds the trial court conducted a final dissolution hearing without affording him an opportunity to participate. We reverse and remand.
Because the appellant had apprised the trial court of his desire to attend and present evidence at the final dissolution hearing, the trial court erred in conducting the final dissolution hearing and entering final judgment without giving him an opportunity to appear, at least by telephone. We reject, however, appellant's alternative argument that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and for that reason erred in entering final judgment of dissolution. See generally Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252, 1256-57 (Fla.2002) ( ). In filing below, among other things, a response to the dissolution petition, a request to complete approved parenting course, a motion for continuance, and a motion for jury trial none of which stated an objection to the court's exercising personal jurisdiction, appellant waived any right to contest the trial court's jurisdiction of his person. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 921 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Brivis Enters., Inc. v. Von Plinski, 976 So.2d 1244, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Solmo v. Friedman, 909 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) .
Appellant preserved for appellate review his right to be heard at the final dissolution hearing by apprising the trial court of his desire to be heard, his incarceration notwithstanding. Cf. Alfonso v. Alfonso, 823 So.2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ( ). As Judge Warner observed, in her special concurrence in Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So.2d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008):
Unlike the state's obligation in criminal cases to ensure the defendant's presence at critical stages of proceedings, in civil court no corresponding duty is imposed on the state. A prisoner involved in civil litigation (including family law cases) has the right to be heard but must take the initiative to secure the opportunity to appear and present his version of the facts. In other words, the prisoner must bring to the court's attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at hearing or trial.
When the issue is preserved, however, the right is clear. See Waugh v. Waugh, 679 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ( ); McGlamry v. McGlamry, 608 So.2d 553, 554-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ( ).
In the present case, because appellant "apprise[d] the court of his desire to be present" at the final hearing, Rogers, 977 So.2d at 687, including by "mov[ing] to continue the proceedings," id., the trial court erred in failing to give appellant an opportunity to appear (at least telephonically) at the hearing. See Baker v. Baker, 403 So.2d 1111, 1113-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) ( ).
The best practice would have been a separate motion for an order allowing participation by telephone. "When a party is incarcerated and cannot physically appear in a civil matter, the trial court normally should grant a request to hold necessary hearings by telephone, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071 [now 2.530], as an alternative to requiring that the inmate be transported to the hearing by the state." Johnson v. Johnson, 783 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ( ); Corn v. Blackmon, 802 So.2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ( ). A motion for an order requiring transport to the final hearing in person would also, unless granted in full, have obligated the trial court to consider alternatives to appellant's physical presence at the hearing. In Conner v. Conner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buzzard v. F.F. Enterprises
... ... which he is a Party, 82 A.L.R.4th 1063 (1990) (collecting and analyzing relevant cases).In Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So.2d 399 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2008), the trial court denied an incarcerated husband's ... ...
-
Sauer v. Scheibe
... ... the court's attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at hearing or trial.Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. DCA 1st 2008).Both the Vanaman and Johnson decisions reflect ... ...
- Wilson v. Wilson
-
Weston v. Weston
... ... Plympton , 219 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson , 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ). If the prisoner requests to be heard, "the ... ...
-
Trial and evidence
...provide for the giving of testimony by communication equipment. A party in jail can be “present” by telephone. [ Johnson v. Johnson , 992 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (where husband, who was incarcerated in a foreign state, had appraised court of his desire to attend and present evidence ......
-
Parental responsibility
...to mother not error because child will be in his twenties at time of father’s projected release date from prison); Johnson v. Johnson , 992 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (the Husband who was incarcerated informed the court that he wished to be present for the final hearing in his divorce wa......