BROOKS v. BASDEO (2022)

Appellant, Basheera Aliyah Walton Brooks, appeals the final judgment granting Appellee's petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence. Appellee, Trevor Abraham Basdeo, filed a pro se petition against Appellant alleging she had committed an incident of domestic violence on July 24, 2021. At the hearing held to determine whether to extend the initial ex parte injunction, over Appellant's objection, Appellee testified regarding another, but unpled, incident of Appellant allegedly committing domestic violence in March of 2021. At the hearing, the trial court orally announced that Appellee had met his burden of proof, through allegations and testimony that there had been physical violence between the parties on numerous incidences. The final judgment stated that the injunction was to be in effect through February 22, 2022.¹ We agree with Appellant that the trial court denied her due process and erred in admitting testimony regarding and relying upon an unpled incident. We quash the injunction entered against Appellant.

“It is axiomatic that a party defending against a claim is entitled to due process, including the right to proper and adequate notice of the allegations which form the basis for the relief sought.” Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So. 3d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “The purpose of pleadings is to present, define, and narrow the issues, and to form the foundation of, and to limit, the proof to be submitted on the trial.” White v. Fletcher, 90 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 1956) (quoting 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 1). “To ‘allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party's due process rights.’ ” Sanchez, 138 So. 3d at 1167 (quoting Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).

The applicable statute provides: “The sworn petition must allege the existence of such domestic violence and must include the specific facts and circumstances upon the basis of which relief is sought.” § 741.30(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019). Appellee's petition referred only to the events of July 24, 2021.

In J.G.G. v. M.S., this Court held that the appellant was denied due process where two unpled material allegations of domestic violence were raised for the first time at the hearing because their admission deprived the appellant of his due process rights of proper notice and a full and fair opportunity to prepare to rebut them. 312 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). We likewise hold here that Appellant's due process rights were violated when the court permitted testimony regarding and then relied upon an unpled incident as part of its basis for granting the injunction. The injunction is hereby quashed.

INJUNCTION QUASHED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the injunction has already expired, the appeal is nevertheless not moot. “Collateral consequences that flow from an injunction for the protection against domestic violence prevent application of the mootness doctrine.” Molina v. Valenzuela, 252 So. 3d 772, 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “One such collateral consequence is a potential prohibition on owning a firearm.” Id. (citing Boyles v. Tiefenthaler, 810 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)).

EDWARDS, J.

LAMBERT, C.J. and WALLIS, J., concur.