Peaslee v. Perrine

Because Appellant’s Motion to Terminate/Vacate the Final Judgment of Injunction was legally sufficient by alleging facts demonstrating “changed circumstances” such that “the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose,” Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we hold that the trial court erred in not affording Appellant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before summarily denying his motion. See Bennett v. Abdo, 167 So.3d 522, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Carrozza v. Stowers, 153 So.3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ramirez v. Teutsch, 134 So.3d 995 (Fla. 1st…