Carrillo v. Carrillo , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18223 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    ROBERTO CARRILLO, JR.,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                                 Case No. 5D16-2167
    SARAH JEAN CARRILLO INDIVIDUALLY
    and O/B/O J.L., S.C. and S.C. CHILDREN,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________________/
    Opinion filed December 9, 2016
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Seminole County,
    Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.
    Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of
    Mark A Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for
    Appellant.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert Carrillo, Jr., appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment of injunction for
    protection against domestic violence in favor of Sarah Jean Carrillo. The record in this
    case reflects that the trial court, which also presided over three other cases involving the
    parties, relied primarily on non-record evidence from those cases to support the final
    judgment of injunction. We do not suggest that a trial court cannot rely on records from
    other cases involving the same parties to a subsequent injunction proceeding, but it must
    follow the procedure for taking judicial notice of those records outlined in section
    90.204(1), Florida Statutes (2016). "[P]rocedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that
    respondents in these petitions are on notice of the claims against them and of the
    evidence that will be used to decide those claims and that the evidence is made part of
    the record." Coe v. Coe, 
    39 So. 3d 542
    , 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). As in Coe, the trial
    court's failure in this case "to formally take judicial notice of these files and to make them
    part of the record in this case to support the ruling is fatal." 
    Id. at 545
     (footnote omitted).
    Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of injunction because no competent,
    substantial evidence in the record before us supports the trial court's findings.
    REVERSED.
    LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Case 5D16-2167

Citation Numbers: 204 So. 3d 985, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18223

Judges: Lawson, Per Curiam, Torpy, Wallis

Filed Date: 12/9/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024