## Facts

- The parties’ dissolution was governed by a marital settlement agreement.
- In post-dissolution proceedings, the former wife moved to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The enforcement motion was set on the trial court’s motion calendar rather than for an evidentiary hearing.
- At the motion-calendar hearing, the former wife presented a witness to give live testimony without prior notice to the court or the former husband.
- The former husband objected to taking testimony at motion calendar and requested a continuance, stating he had not brought his own witness because he did not expect an evidentiary proceeding.
- The trial court denied the continuance, took the former wife’s testimony, and granted the motion to enforce.
- The former husband appealed; the former wife cross-appealed regarding valuation treatment of corporate stock.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting contested live testimony at a motion-calendar hearing without specific advance notice.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance requested to secure opposing testimony and prepare to meet surprise evidence.
3. Whether the enforcement order could stand where the opposing party lacked a fair opportunity to present contrary evidence before the ruling.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order enforcing the settlement agreement and remanded for a new hearing on the enforcement motion.
- The court held the former husband’s continuance request should have been granted given the surprise introduction of contested testimony at motion calendar.
- The former wife’s cross-appeal was rendered moot by the reversal and remand, though the court noted her evidentiary challenge to “good will sentimental value” of corporate stock appeared plausible based on the record then before it.

## Legal Principles

- Motion-calendar hearings are generally expected to be brief and limited to counsel’s argument, not contested evidentiary presentations.
- A trial court may take testimony at motion calendar in uncontested matters or by agreement of the parties.
- If the court intends to allow testimony on a disputed matter at motion calendar, it must provide specific advance notice, sufficient time to prepare, and an adequate opportunity to present contrary testimony before ruling.
- Denial of a continuance in the face of surprise contested testimony can constitute reversible abuse of discretion when it deprives the opposing party of a fair opportunity to respond.

## Conclusion

The enforcement order was reversed because the trial court converted a motion-calendar setting into a contested evidentiary proceeding without advance notice and without granting a continuance needed for the opposing party to present responsive evidence, requiring a new hearing on remand.


Juliano v. Juliano, 687 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)