BEVERLIE J. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN P. MILLER AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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 trial court abused its discretion by denying the mother's request for a continuance or telephonic appearance, thus violating her right to be heard.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a party's request for a continuance or telephonic appearance when the request is facially valid and supported by a confessi…
[2] A trial court errs in the family law context by failing to allow a party to offer evidence regarding their ability to pay.
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 intelligenceThe mother requested a continuance or telephonic appearance for a child support modification hearing due to caring for a premature infant. The hearing…
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 Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal challenging an “Order on Reserve[d] Issues,” i.e., an order modifying the appellant mother’s child support obligation, the Department of Revenue (DOR) has filed a confession of error, acknowledging that the trial court, through its hearing officer, abused its discretion in denying the mother’s request for a continuance or to appear telephonically. Several days before the scheduled modification hearing, the mother faxed a request to have the hearing rescheduled or to appear telephonically because she was caring for her premature infant and would therefore find it difficult to travel to Florida from her home in South Carolina. The hearing officer denied the motion using a rubber stamp. The hearing took place in the absence of the mother, and the court issued an order directing the mother to pay monthly child support based on an imputation of minimum wage, resulting in a higher support level than would have been calculated had the figures on mother’s financial affidavit been used.
As a general proposition, in the family law context a trial court errs if it fails to allow a party to offer evidence as to ability to pay. See, e.g., Horton v. Horton, 573 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Blews v. Blews, 812 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (concluding that the court erred by ruling on modification of alimony and child support after the parties’ opening statements). Indeed, the failure to provide an opportunity to be heard may well implicate procedural due process. See, e.g., Leinenbach v. Leinenbach, 634 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
In this light, and given the facial validity of the mother’s request and DOR’s confession of error, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mother’s request for a continuance or a telephonic hearing. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for a new *285hearing, with a reasonable accommodation made to ensure the mother’s appearance either in person or by telephone.
ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leinenbach v. Karyn Ruth Leinenbach, 634 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Weasel v. Weasel, 421 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Horton v. Horton, 573 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Blews v. Blews, 812 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)