FREDERICK B. JENISTER AND MELVA E. JENISTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK I. UNGER AND JUNE M. UNGER, APPELLEES
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.
The Jenisters appealed a trial court order modifying an injunction in their favor against the Ungers without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court reversed, holding that due process requires notice and hearing before a court can alter property rights, and that the consolidation of the two suits was improper.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the injunction because the Jenisters were not provided notice of the court's intention to alter their rights. Due process requires, at minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court alters property rights. The consolidation of the two suits was also improper because the Jenisters' suit was no longer pending.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to modify an injunction affecting a party's property rights without providing that party with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[2] Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court alters a party's property rights.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the injunction since the Jenisters had not been furnished any notice of the court's intention to alter their rights.”
Establishes that lack of notice deprived the court of jurisdiction to modify the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1979, Charlotte County sued the Ungers to enforce zoning regulations and obtained an injunction in 1982 requiring restrictions on customer parking.…
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 Violation Of Restrictive Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
In 1979, the Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County filed suit against the Ungers to enforce certain county zoning regulations. The county prevailed, and the court issued an injunction in 1982 requiring the Ungers to restrict parking by customers of their lounge on lots adjoining the Jenisters’ residential property. The court also ordered the Ungers to take other measures to protect the character of the adjacent residential properties.
In the following year, 1983, the Jenisters sued the Ungers alleging violation of several restrictive covenants. The Jenisters were successful, and in 1985 the court issued an injunction limiting the use of the Unger property and requiring them to install fences and hedges as a buffer to the adjoining lots.
On February 20, 1986, the court consolidated the two actions and found the Un-gers in contempt of court for violating the injunctions previously issued in the county’s suit and in the Jenister suit. Subsequently, on April 3, 1986, the court modified the injunction previously issued in the suit the Jenisters filed against the Ungers.
While the Jenisters appeared as witnesses in that proceeding, they were not parties to it. They had not been notified in advance of the scope of the proceedings nor did they consent to the modification of the injunction. The modification provided that upon performance of certain conditions the Ungers could use part of their back lots for service vehicles access, which would result in a slight infringement on the Jenisters’ property.
The Jenisters filed this appeal challenging the court’s order of April 3, 1986, modifying the injunction. We find their appeal meritorious.
The trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the injunction since the Jenisters had not been furnished any notice of the court’s intention to alter their rights. Fundamental requirements of due process of law require, at a minimum, some notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court alters property rights. Hernandez v. Ward, 437 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
We also note that the court improperly consolidated the county’s suit with the Jenisters’ suit, which was no longer “pending”. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270(a); Seddon v. Harpster, 438 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
We vacate the trial court’s order of April 3, 1986, and remand for such further proceedings as may be appropriate on notice to the Jenisters.
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Beary, 665 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…’s order which dismissed Johnson’s complaint, and remand for further proceedings. . When a property right has been established, a right to a hearing is guaranteed under the Due Process Clause once impairment of that right occurs. Jenister v. Unger, 507 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Metropolitan Dade County v. Sokolowski, 439 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984). The record in this case only reveals that a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held. Unless this hearing provide…
-
Carey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. a/s/o Dennis & Rosalie Den Besten, 848 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…judgment. See Sec. Prof'ls, Inc. ex rel. Paikin v. Segall, 685 So. 2d 1381, 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“As a general rule, parties that are not included in a stipulation for settlement cannot be bound by its provisions.”); see also Jenister v. Unger, 507 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (stating that due process requires, at a minimum, notice and opportunity to be heard). The dismissal with prejudice is not being challenged on appeal, and therefore, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice as to all parties.…
Authorities Cited
- Seddon v. Harpster, 438 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Hernandez v. Deputy Ward, 437 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)