ROY WALL
v.
ZOE KYRAMARIOS-WALL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Father appeals a trial court order arising from alleged violation of a domestic violence injunction that prohibited him from contacting his minor children. The court found Father did not violate the injunction by texting his daughter on her eighteenth birthday but issued an order prohibiting all contact with her as an adult, which Father argues violated his due process rights because Mother never requested such relief.
Yes. The trial court violated Father's due process rights by granting relief that Mother did not request. It is well-settled that a trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the party did not request.
[1] A trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the party did not request.
[2] A trial court may not grant relief not sought in a motion for civil contempt, even if the relief is consistent with the spirit of a prior injunction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well-settled that a trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the party did not request.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that courts cannot grant relief beyond what was requested, even if concerned about injustice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn amended final judgment of injunction granted Mother protection against domestic violence and awarded her 100% time-sharing with the parties' two mi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roy Wall (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order that was entered on the “Motion for Civil Contempt, Enforcement, and Related Relief” filed by Zoe Kyramarios-Wall (“Mother”), arising from Father’s alleged violation of the amended final judgment that granted Mother an injunction for protection against domestic violence from Father. Pertinent here, the amended final judgment of injunction established, among other things, a temporary parenting plan involving the parties’ two minor children whereby Mother was given 100 percent of the time-sharing with the children and Father was prohibited from having any contact with them, including by phone, text, or email.
In the motion for contempt at issue, Mother asserted that Father had violated the injunction by sending a text message to the parties’ eldest child on her eighteenth birthday.
At the hearing held on the motion, Father stipulated that he sent this text but argued that he should not be found or held in contempt because the parenting plan contained in the injunction only prohibited him from contacting his daughter while she was still a minor child.1 The trial court conceded that Father “may, technically, be correct,” but it voiced concern that Father’s text message to his now-adult daughter violated “the spirit of the law and what was intended by [the predecessor judge who entered the injunction].” Father also acknowledged sending subsequent text messages to his 1 daughter. 2 The written order that was entered following the hearing that is now before us for review did not find or hold Father to be in contempt.
The trial court did, however, specifically provide in its order that Father “shall have no direct or indirect contact with [the parties’ adult daughter].” Father takes issue with this verbiage in the order, arguing here that the trial court violated his right to due process by essentially enjoining him from having contact with his adult daughter when such relief was not requested by Mother in her motion.
We agree.2 See Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“It is well-settled that a trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the party did not request.”).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order on Mother’s motion for civil contempt is reversed.
REVERSED.
LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 2 To be clear, we take no position as to whether the adult daughter would be entitled to an injunction for protection against Father if she separately pursued such a claim. 3