Narrative Opinion Summary
In a dispute involving an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, the trial court initially awarded the mother an injunction while granting the father temporary primary custody of their son. After the mother failed to comply with the custody order, the father sought and obtained an ex parte amendment to the injunction, authorizing law enforcement assistance in retrieving the child. The mother, through her attorney, contested the amendment arguing it violated her right to notice and a hearing, referencing the *Mayotte v. Mayotte* case, which underscores the necessity of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to amending injunctions. The trial court's denial of the mother's motion to set aside the amendment was appealed. The father contended the appeal was moot due to the consolidation of the injunction with an ongoing dissolution case, but the appellate court found no evidence the injunction was unenforceable, thus rejecting the mootness argument. As a result, the appellate court reversed and struck the amended injunction order, establishing jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Injunctions Without Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that amendments to injunctions require notice and an opportunity for both parties to be heard, which was not adhered to in this case.
Reasoning: Citing *Mayotte v. Mayotte*, the court emphasized that amendments to injunctions require notice and opportunity for both parties to be heard, reaffirming that the trial court erred in this case.
Jurisdiction in Appeals of Non-Final Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jurisdiction for the appeal was established under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), allowing the appellate court to review the trial court's non-final order.
Reasoning: Consequently, the amended injunction order is reversed and stricken, with jurisdiction established under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Mootness of Appeal in Consolidated Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The father's argument that the appeal was moot due to consolidation with a dissolution case was rejected as there was no evidence the amended injunction was unenforceable.
Reasoning: The father acknowledged the relevance of *Mayotte* but argued the appeal was moot due to the consolidation of the injunction with their ongoing dissolution case. However, the court found no evidence indicating the amended injunction was no longer enforceable, thus ruling the appeal was not moot.