Samuel Parise v. Sally Selph

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
SAMUEL PARISE, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-3037
CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1
SALLY SELPH, CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED
MAILED: October 13, 2015
BY: NMS
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 12, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.
Robert M. Foster, Judge.
Bryan S. Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., and Jennifer Shoaf Richardson of Boyd
& Jenerette, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Sally Selph, pro se, Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Parise appeals a final judgment granting an injunction for protection
against repeat violence based on a petition by Sally Selph. We reverse the injunction
because Mr. Parise was not given a full opportunity to present evidence in opposition
to the petition for injunction, including the testimony of his law enforcement officer
witness.
We recognized in Furry v. Rickles that “[p]arties are entitled to a full hearing
prior to the trial court issuing a permanent injunction.” 68 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2011) (citing § 741.30, Fla. Stat.). At an injunction hearing, due process
requires that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove the
allegations made in the complaint, including “allowing relevant testimony of
pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are present and cross-examination of the
parties.” Id. (citing Ohrn v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). See also
§ 784.046 (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (permitting grant of temporary ex parte injunction
“pending a full hearing”). At the short evidentiary hearing held in this matter, Mr.
Parise requested on the record to present one witness, a law enforcement officer who
had “dealt with this situation before.” The request was denied without even
permitting Mr. Parise time to explain or proffer what the officer’s testimony would
address. We conclude that Mr. Parise was not afforded the due process associated
with a full hearing, and therefore reverse the injunction and remand for a new hearing
on the petition. See also Snead v. Ansley, 160 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
2