Orazio Amadio Afanasiev v. Ligia Carolina Romero Alvarez
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 26, 2020
Docket3D19-1993
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 26, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1993
Lower Tribunal No. 18-2898
________________
Orazio Amadio Afanasiev,
Appellant,
vs.
Ligia Carolina Romero Alvarez,
Appellee.
An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
G&F Law Group, LLP, and I. Albert Gonzalez, Alexander C. Flint and Ariel
Rapaport, for appellant.
No Appearance for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of two trial court orders entered in the parties’
dissolution of marriage action, which were issued at a final hearing on Appellee’s
petition for domestic violence injunction.
After multiple evidentiary hearings on Appellee’s petition for domestic
violence injunction, the trial court found there was insufficient evidence to issue a
permanent injunction and dismissed the petition. In an abundance of caution,
however, the court sua sponte issued a stay away order in the parties’ pending
dissolution of marriage action and granted Appellee temporary exclusive use and
possession of the marital home. Appellant argues the trial court denied him due
process by issuing orders in the dissolution of marriage action as the hearing was
limited to the permanent injunction. There was no pending motion or hearing
noticed in the dissolution of marriage action. We have previously held that “the
granting of relief, which is not sought by the notice of hearing or which expands the
scope of a hearing and decides matters not noticed for hearing, violates due process.”
Lapciuc v. Lapciuc, 275 So. 3d 242, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Miami-Dade
Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. An Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724, 734
(Fla. 3d DCA 2016)); see also Mizrahi v. Mizrahi, 867 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2004) (“Due process protections prevent a trial court from deciding matters
not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings.”). Accordingly,
2
we lift the stay away order and reverse and remand for proceedings with proper
notice to the parties.
Reversed.
3