NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SHERI LYNN PORVAZNIK o/b/o E.M.P., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3425 

)

ROBERT ANDREW PORVAZNIK o/b/o )

R.M.P., )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed July 6, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; Leigh Frizell Hayes, Judge.

Susan M. Bodden, Port Charlotte, for 

Appellant.

Pamela T. Calderon, Venice, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

Sheri Porvaznik challenges the order dissolving a permanent injunction for 

protection against sexual violence. Ms. Porvaznik asserts that she did not have proper 

notice of the evidentiary hearing on Robert Porvaznik's motion to dissolve the injunction 

and thus that the lower court violated her due process rights by proceeding with the 

hearing and granting the motion without giving her an opportunity to be heard. Ms. 
- 2 -

Porvaznik also argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony of Mr. Porvaznik's 

expert witness. We reverse. 

On June 14, 2017, Mr. Porvaznik filed a motion to dissolve the permanent 

injunction. A notice of hearing was served on July 14, 2017, indicating that the matter 

would be heard on August 15, 2017. Thereafter, an amended notice of hearing was 

served on August 10, 2017, indicating that the hearing on the motion had been 

rescheduled for August 22, 2017. Yet on August 15, Mr. Porvaznik appeared with 

counsel prepared to present evidence in support of his motion to dissolve the injunction. 

Neither Ms. Porvaznik nor her counsel was present. The matter was not on the court's 

docket for that day, and the court expressed concern that Ms. Porvaznik did not have 

adequate notice of the hearing. Nonetheless, the court proceeded with the evidentiary 

hearing on the motion to dissolve the injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the 

court held as follows: "So based on your expert today and the fact that the petitioner is 

not here, I'm going to go ahead and find that there's a change in circumstance, and 

dissolve this injunction." (Emphasis added.) The court entered an order dissolving the 

injunction that same day. Ms. Porvaznik then filed this appeal. 

Without question, the court violated Ms. Porvaznik's due process rights in 

conducting the evidentiary hearing without notice and an opportunity to be heard. See 

Chanfrau v. Fernandez, 782 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("Appellant was given 

no notice that the court would even contemplate dismissal [of permanent injunction 

against domestic violence] nor was he given an opportunity to argue against it. By 

dismissing the injunction without motion, notice, or evidentiary hearing, the court failed 

to afford appellant due process in this matter."); cf. Samanka v. Brookhouser, 899 So. 
- 3 -

2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing order extending and modifying an existing 

injunction against appellant for protection against domestic violence where appellant 

was not given an opportunity to challenge the allegations against her; concluding that 

since appellant did not have her "day in court," she was denied due process). We 

therefore reverse the order dissolving the injunction and remand for further proceedings. 

With proper notice, Ms. Porvaznik will have the opportunity to raise objections to the 

testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing and to cross-examine the witnesses as 

she sees fit. 

Reversed and remanded. 

SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.