Gaynor v. Gaynor (232 So. 3d 525, 2017)

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges .an order summarily denying his motion, to dissolve a domestic violence injunction. In his motion, he alleged that the injunction had served its purpose and was no longer necessary because he had not had any contact with the other party for the past 8 years, and he did not have any reason to be in contact with her in the future. He further alleged he had a change in circumstances because he was currently imprisoned, and the'injunction prevented him from participating in re-entry and work release programs. His motion was legally sufficient, and thüs the court’s summary denial without affording appellant a meaningful opportunity to be ‘ heard violated due process requirements. See Kugler v. Joosten, 58 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Colarusso v. Lupetin, 28 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DOA 2010). Thus, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.