ROY WALL vs ZOE KYRAMARIOS-WALL
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 ROY WALL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-1504 LT Case No. 2020-DR-030191 ZOE KYRAMARIOS-WALL, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 14, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Nancy Maloney, Judge. Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris Appellate Law Office, Mims, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Roy Wall (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order that was entered on the “Motion for Civil Contempt, Enforcement, and Related Relief” filed by Zoe Kyramarios-Wall (“Mother”), arising from Father’s alleged violation of the amended final judgment that granted Mother an injunction for protection against domestic violence from Father. Pertinent here, the amended final judgment of injunction established, among other things, a temporary parenting plan involving the parties’ two minor children whereby Mother was given 100 percent of the time-sharing with the children and Father was prohibited from having any contact with them, including by phone, text, or email. In the motion for contempt at issue, Mother asserted that Father had violated the injunction by sending a text message to the parties’ eldest child on her eighteenth birthday. At the hearing held on the motion, Father stipulated that he sent this text but argued that he should not be found or held in contempt because the parenting plan contained in the injunction only prohibited him from contacting his daughter while she was still a minor child.1 The trial court conceded that Father “may, technically, be correct,” but it voiced concern that Father’s text message to his now-adult daughter violated “the spirit of the law and what was intended by [the predecessor judge who entered the injunction].” Father also acknowledged sending subsequent text messages to his daughter. 1 2 The written order that was entered following the hearing that is now before us for review did not find or hold Father to be in contempt. The trial court did, however, specifically provide in its order that Father “shall have no direct or indirect contact with [the parties’ adult daughter].” Father takes issue with this verbiage in the order, arguing here that the trial court violated his right to due process by essentially enjoining him from having contact with his adult daughter when such relief was not requested by Mother in her motion. We agree.2 See Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“It is well-settled that a trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the party did not request.”). Accordingly, the trial court’s order on Mother’s motion for civil contempt is reversed. REVERSED. LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and TRAVER, JJ., concur. To be clear, we take no position as to whether the adult daughter would be entitled to an injunction for protection against Father if she separately pursued such a claim. 2 3
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.
