Carrillo v. Carillo

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ROBERTO CARRILLO, JR., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-2167 SARAH JEAN CARRILLO INDIVIDUALLY and O/B/O J.L., S.C. and S.C. CHILDREN, Appellee. _____________________________________/ Opinion filed December 9, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Michael J. Rudisill, Judge. Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of Mark A Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Robert Carrillo, Jr., appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence in favor of Sarah Jean Carrillo. The record in this case reflects that the trial court, which also presided over three other cases involving the parties, relied primarily on non-record evidence from those cases to support the final judgment of injunction. We do not suggest that a trial court cannot rely on records from other cases involving the same parties to a subsequent injunction proceeding, but it must follow the procedure for taking judicial notice of those records outlined in section 90.204(1), Florida Statutes (2016). "[P]rocedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that respondents in these petitions are on notice of the claims against them and of the evidence that will be used to decide those claims and that the evidence is made part of the record." Coe v. Coe, 39 So. 3d 542, 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). As in Coe, the trial court's failure in this case "to formally take judicial notice of these files and to make them part of the record in this case to support the ruling is fatal." Id. at 545 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of injunction because no competent, substantial evidence in the record before us supports the trial court's findings. REVERSED. LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.