RICHARD D. LEIJA
v.
WHITNEY BYRD
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.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion to dissolve an injunction for protection against repeat violence when the movant alleges lack of contact with the petitioner over fifteen years and that the injunction interferes with employment, without affording a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court must afford a movant a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a motion to dissolve an injunction for protection against repeat violence when the movant prese…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[T]he trial court erred in denying this legally sufficient motion without affording appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
Court's statement of the error committed by the trial court in this injunction case.
Leija was subject to an injunction for protection against repeat violence entered in 1999. He moved to dissolve the injunction, alleging no contact wi…
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 Protection Against Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-1512 _____________________________
RICHARD D. LEIJA,
Appellant,
v. WHITNEY BYRD,
Appellee.
___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. John I. Guy, Judge.
January 17, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Richard Leija appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to dissolve an injunction entered in 1999 for protection against repeat violence. In the motion, Mr. Leija alleged that he had not had contact with the petitioner, Whitney Byrd, in over fifteen years and the injunction was interfering with his ability to find employment and to participate in a work-release program. We agree with Mr. Leija that “[t]he trial court erred in denying this legally sufficient motion without affording appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Raymonvil v. Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139, 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (finding the motion to be legally sufficient where the movant “alleged that he had not had contact with the petitioner, was presently incarcerated, and the injunction was impacting his ability to participate in a work-release program.”).
2
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. LEWIS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elur J. Raymonvil v. Sade Ferrari Lewis, 46 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)