Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
Both parties to a Florida family law proceeding should have the same opportunity to present their cases. When one party is given the right to present evidence, but the other is not, this may result in a due process violation. This was an issue in the case Pino v. Pino, 4D2022-3258 (Fla. 4th DCA March 6, 2024).
In the parties’ original divorce proceedings, the former husband was ordered to pay alimony to the former wife. When he stopped paying, the former wife moved to hold him in contempt. In this process, she sought discovery from him, and he failed to comply resulting in multiple contempt orders. The former husband was eventually incarcerated as a result of these contempt orders. Before he was incarcerated, a hearing was held at which the former wife was permitted to present her case. During her testimony, the former husband objected repeatedly as to a lack of the former wife’s personal knowledge as to what the former husband produced in discovery. The court overruled the objections and told the former husband he would be able to cross-examine the former wife as to her personal knowledge. However, when it came time for the former husband to cross-examine and present his case, the court cut the hearing short, citing another scheduled hearing and requesting that the former husband present his case in writing. The former husband agreed and submitted a written brief which included a request to continue the hearing to allow the former husband to present his case. The trial court denied this request, granted the former wife’s motion and ordered the former husband to be incarcerated. The former husband appealed.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, holding “Here, the trial court abused its discretion when it did not provide Former Husband with the same opportunity to be heard as Former Wife. The trial court allowed only Former Wife to testify before ending the hearing. And during the hearing, the trial court overruled several objections to Former Wife’s lack of personal knowledge, explicitly stating once that Former Husband could address Former Wife’s personal knowledge on cross-examination. But when the court ended the hearing, Former Husband had not finished his cross-examination. While Former Husband initially agreed with the trial court that the case could be concluded in writing, Former Husband requested in his post-hearing submission—before the trial court ruled on Former Wife’s motion—that he be given a chance to present his case at a continuation of the hearing. Because Former Wife was given an opportunity to speak and present her testimony at a hearing, Former Husband should have been given that same opportunity.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law might apply to the facts of your case.