Stover v. Stover
Decision Date | 03 January 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D18-4820 |
Citation | 287 So.3d 1277 |
Parties | Brian B. STOVER, Appellant, v. Ashley M. STOVER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roberta E. Blush and K. Dean Kantaras of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., Palm Harbor, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
Brian B. Stover (Father) appeals the trial court's final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children.1 Specifically, he contests (1) the trial court's determination that the evidence warranted an injunction, and (2) the trial court's award of exclusive timesharing to Ashley M. Stover (Mother). We affirm the first issue without comment. As to the second issue, our record indicates that the injunction has expired and the timesharing award is no longer in effect. Thus, we cannot grant Father any effectual relief, and the second issue is moot.2 See generally Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) .
Mother filed a form petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence. The form provided several timesharing options:
Mother marked options (a) and (b). The form then permitted Mother to summarize the relief sought. The summarized options were, in pertinent part:
Mother marked option (i).
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. At the end of the hearing, the trial court initially awarded Father supervised timesharing. When his counsel reminded the trial court that Mother had requested no such relief, the trial court stated it would "deal with timesharing at some other time." The trial court further explained that Father's counsel agreed to this procedure. The trial court subsequently rendered the final judgment awarding Mother exclusive timesharing, without holding a further hearing. The terms of the injunction expired on November 28, 2019.
Father argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by awarding Mother exclusive timesharing of the parties' minor children because the relief was not requested in the pleadings and Father "had no notice that a limitation or prohibition of his timesharing would be adjudicated." We agree.
Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citations omitted); see, e.g., Davis v. Lopez-Davis, 162 So. 3d 19, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ( ). "Additionally, a court should not grant such relief absent proper notice to the parties." Worthington v. Worthington, 123 So. 3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Sinton v. Sinton, 749 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ). Granting unrequested relief absent proper notice is a violation of due process. See Buschor v. Buschor, 252 So. 3d 833, 834-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ( ).
Mother requested a temporary timesharing schedule with supervised exchanges of the minor children. Mother's petition did not give Father notice that the trial court might limit or prohibit his timesharing. When the trial court recognized that Mother did not request such relief, it deferred ruling on the timesharing issue until it conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter, a hearing that never occurred. By awarding Mother unrequested relief without proper notice, the trial court violated Father's due process rights. See id. () .
Although the trial court erred by awarding Mother exclusive timesharing, we are compelled to dismiss this issue as moot because the injunction—including the erroneous timesharing award—has expired. See Julian v. Bryan, 710 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Battaglia
...from such a judgment.’ " (quoting Phillips v. Phillips , 151 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) )); see also Stover v. Stover , 287 So. 3d 1277, 1278 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (concluding that the expiration of the domestic violence injunction did not render moot the issue of whether the evidenc......
-
Bell v. Battaglia
...(emphasis added)); see also Yaklin, 296 So.3d at 533 (same); Sinopoli v. Clark, 290 So.3d 159, 160 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (same); Stover, 287 So.3d at 1277, n.2 Our dissenting colleague attempts to draw a distinction between domestic violence injunctions and other types of violence injuncti......
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Cole
-
Rosaly v. Konecny
...seeking exclusive time sharing. "[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the pleadings." Stover v. Stover , 287 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Abbott v. Abbott , 98 So. 3d 616, 617–18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ). "A trial court violates due process and reversibl......