When a court enters a no contact order in a family case, most people assume it was requested in writing, noticed for hearing, and litigated with full opportunity for both sides to prepare. The Second District’s decision in Campana v. Trabold (December 18, 2024) shows what happens when those guardrails are missing. The appellate court reversed a Hillsborough County nonfinal order because the trial court granted relief that neither party pled or properly placed at issue, and the resulting order effectively gave one parent exclusive use and possession of a jointly owned home without due process. A Tampa divorce lawyer sees this problem more often than it should occur, especially in fast-moving temporary hearings where courts try to solve multiple issues at once.
This case involved unmarried parents who jointly owned a home, a relocation to Ohio after a domestic violence incident, a petition to establish paternity and timesharing, and a hearing focused on returning the children to Florida and setting a schedule. In the middle of that procedural tangle, a “stipulated” no contact order appeared for the first time, and the trial court entered it even though no pleading requested it and the terms were never clearly litigated. The Second District held that was harmful error because it denied fundamental due process. If you are litigating paternity, timesharing, or temporary relief in Hillsborough County, a Tampa divorce lawyer will typically treat Campana as required reading.
Below is what happened, why the appellate court reversed, and what parents should take from the decision when dealing with no contact orders, exclusive use of a home, and temporary parenting arrangements.
The Core Lesson From the Second District
The legal takeaway is straightforward. A trial court cannot grant remedies that were not requested in the pleadings or noticed for hearing unless the issue was tried by consent. And “tried by consent” does not mean a topic was casually mentioned at some point in a hearing. It means the parties had a fair opportunity to defend, understood the issue was being litigated, and could have presented additional evidence if they had known the remedy was on the table. When a court enters a no contact order that effectively locks a parent out of a jointly owned home without prior pleading or notice, it violates due process.
That is why this decision matters in Tampa family cases. A Tampa divorce lawyer often deals with emergency-style hearings where one side wants a quick return order or a temporary schedule. Courts are under pressure to stabilize children’s lives quickly. But even in urgent situations, the court must stay within the boundaries of what was properly asked for and what the parties were prepared to litigate.
Background Facts
The parents and the home
Maria Campana and Michael Trabold were unmarried. They jointly owned a home in Hillsborough County where they lived with their two minor children. The ownership status matters because it was not a situation where one party owned the home outright. Each parent had a property interest.
The move to Ohio after a domestic violence incident
On September 3, 2023, following a domestic violence incident, the Mother unilaterally moved with the children to Ohio. The opinion notes the Mother testified extensively about allegations of domestic violence and fear for her safety and the children’s safety.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will recognize how quickly these cases can escalate. Once a parent relocates with children across state lines, the litigation often becomes procedural as much as it is factual, including issues about jurisdiction, return orders, and temporary timesharing.
The Florida filings
On October 3, 2024, the Father filed a verified petition to establish paternity, timesharing, and related relief. He also filed a motion for timesharing and a pickup order seeking the children’s return to Florida. The Mother filed a counterpetition addressing paternity, timesharing, and child support.
None of these pleadings requested a no contact order. None requested exclusive use and possession of the jointly owned home.
That detail is the centerpiece of the appellate reversal. Courts can only grant the relief requested, unless the issue is tried by consent or otherwise properly noticed.
What Happened at the Hearing
A no contact order appears for the first time
During opening statements, the Father for the first time indicated he would stipulate to a no contact order, despite the absence of any written request. At that point, the hearing’s purpose was to address the return of the children and establish timesharing logistics.
Early in the hearing, the Mother’s position was that the children should remain in Ohio. So the mere mention of a no contact order did not necessarily alert her that a no contact order would be entered in Florida in a way that could affect her housing rights.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will often warn clients that what gets said in opening statements can shift the temperature in the courtroom, but it does not necessarily create legal notice that a remedy is being litigated unless it is actually joined by the pleadings or by clear consent during trial.
Confusion about whether the Mother wanted to live in the home
During the Mother’s testimony, she was asked if she had a “desire” to live in the jointly owned home again, and she indicated “no.” That answer became a major driver of the trial court’s later reasoning.
But later, once the trial court ordered the children returned to Florida, the Mother immediately and unequivocally changed her position. She stated that if the children were being forced to move back, she would live with them and would like to live in her home with her children. She also explained she had no alternative housing options in Hillsborough County.
The timeline matters. The trial court repeatedly relied on the Mother’s earlier answer while ignoring her later, more definitive statement made after the return ruling.
The trial court’s approach
The trial court said it was not awarding the house to either party. But the court also repeatedly stated that the Father could live there if he chose, and the court explicitly told the Mother she could not go into the home because of the no contact order. That combination created a real-world result. The Father stayed in the jointly owned home, and the Mother was effectively excluded.
When the Mother asked for clarification, the trial court responded “No” when she asked if she could go into the home with the no contact order in place. The judge questioned why she would want to enter and emphasized that she had earlier said she did not want to live there.
From a practical standpoint, this is where the order crossed into exclusive use and possession, whether or not the trial court used those words.
The Nonfinal Order and Its Real Effect
A few weeks after the hearing, the trial court entered a nonfinal order that:
- Required shared parental responsibility
- Established week-on, week-off timesharing
- Included a “Joint Stipulated No Contact Order” provision
- Required that neither party go to or within 500 feet of where the other party lives
- Indicated it was in the best interests of the children to stay at the joint home
- “Cautioned” the Mother about returning to the home she supposedly did not want to live in
The appellate court focused on the interaction between the no contact terms and the home. The Father testified he lived in the joint home. The order said neither party could go within 500 feet of where the other lived. Without a carve-out allowing the Mother to enter the home, the order made entry impossible.
So even though the trial court claimed it was not awarding the home, the order functionally awarded exclusive use and possession to the Father.
This is a common legal distinction. Courts sometimes say they are not granting exclusive use, but the combination of restrictions creates the same outcome. A Tampa divorce lawyer will typically spot this immediately because the remedy can be hidden in the logistics.
Why the Second District Reversed
Due process and unpled relief
The Second District reiterated a well-settled rule. An order deciding issues not presented by the pleadings, not noticed, and not litigated below denies fundamental due process. Courts lack authority to award relief not requested in the pleadings and motions.
Here, the record was clear. Neither the petition nor the motion requested a no contact order or exclusive use and possession of the jointly owned home. The Father did not dispute that point.
The Father’s trial-by-consent argument failed
The Father argued that the issue was tried by consent because he mentioned the no contact order in opening statements and the Mother did not object when the court asked about it.
The Second District rejected that for two reasons.
First, at the beginning of the hearing, there was no real issue to defend because the Mother was litigating from the premise that the children should remain in Ohio. The no contact order was not discussed in terms. No one explained how it would work with exchanges, housing, or access to the joint home. Also, the Father at the same time suggested he would be agreeable to the Mother returning and staying in the jointly owned home. That context did not place the Mother on notice that the order could later operate to exclude her from her own home.
Second, once it became clear the no contact order would prevent her from entering the home, the Mother did object. She raised the problem during the hearing and sought clarification. She also filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the relief was not requested in any pleading.
For trial by consent, courts look at whether the defending party had a fair opportunity to defend and could have offered additional evidence had the issue been pled. The Second District concluded she did not have that opportunity here.
The appellate court’s conclusion
Because the no contact order was not pled, not noticed, and not tried by consent, the trial court erred in entering it. The Second District reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
For Tampa family cases, a Tampa divorce lawyer can use this as strong authority when a court is asked to enter temporary restrictions that were not properly requested.
Why This Case Matters in Paternity and Timesharing Litigation
Many parents assume these due process limits apply only in divorces. They apply equally in paternity and timesharing actions. The procedural posture in Campana was a paternity and timesharing case, not a divorce, but the same due process principles controlled.
That matters because temporary hearings in paternity cases often move quickly. A party files for a pickup order, a return order, or emergency timesharing. The hearing becomes a blend of child-related issues and adult safety concerns. Courts sometimes attempt to stabilize everything in one hearing, especially where domestic violence allegations exist. But Campana teaches that courts must still respect pleading requirements.
A Tampa divorce lawyer who handles paternity matters will often treat these cases like divorce cases procedurally. The same attention to pleadings, notice, and preservation is required.
No Contact Orders and Exclusive Use Are Different Remedies
Another practical point from Campana is that a no contact order can become a housing order even if it is not labeled as one.
When a no contact order includes distance restrictions tied to where one parent lives, and that parent lives in a jointly owned home, the other parent may be effectively barred from their own property. That outcome is a form of exclusive use and possession.
Courts can grant exclusive use and possession in appropriate cases, but it generally must be requested and litigated. It also may require specific findings depending on the posture of the case.
The key is that you cannot reach exclusive use indirectly through an unpled no contact order. A Tampa divorce lawyerwill often insist on a clear record. If exclusive use is sought, it should be stated plainly, requested in a motion, and set for hearing with notice, so the opposing party can prepare evidence about housing, safety, finances, and alternatives.
Domestic Violence Allegations Do Not Eliminate Due Process
The opinion references the Mother’s testimony about domestic violence. This is important context, but it does not change the due process rule. Courts can enter protective orders under Florida law, but those remedies are generally tied to specific procedures, pleadings, and notice requirements. A court cannot bypass those structures by inserting a no contact order into a paternity hearing when it was not requested and its consequences were not litigated.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will often advise clients that the solution is not to hope a judge improvises. The solution is to file the correct pleading. If protection is needed, seek it through the proper legal vehicle and request specific relief that addresses both safety and logistics, including parenting exchanges and access to a shared home.
Litigation Takeaways for Tampa Parents
1) If you want a no contact order, plead it
If a party wants a no contact order, the request should be made in writing through an appropriate motion or petition. A casual statement that someone is “willing to stipulate” is not a substitute for a formal request, and it is not adequate notice of terms.
2) If you are hit with an unpled remedy, object clearly
If the other side raises a remedy not pled, the record matters. Object early and clearly. State that the relief was not requested, that you did not have notice, and that you would have offered additional evidence had you known it would be litigated.
A Tampa divorce lawyer will often frame this as a due process objection, not merely a disagreement over what is fair.
3) Do not let “stipulated” language slide without terms
The trial court’s order referred to a “Joint Stipulated No Contact Order,” but the opinion shows the terms were never meaningfully discussed. Parties should not accept vague “stipulated” labels when the consequences include housing exclusion, child exchanges, or law enforcement involvement.
4) Think through the housing implications
If a no contact order includes “stay away from where the other party lives,” the parties must address whether both have property rights in that residence, whether one party must retrieve belongings, and how parenting exchanges will occur.
5) Preserve issues with timely post-hearing motions
The Mother filed a motion for reconsideration emphasizing the lack of pleadings and notice. Preservation can be critical in appellate posture. A Tampa divorce lawyer generally treats preservation as a parallel track to trial strategy.
How a Trial Court Can Address Safety Without Violating Due Process
The decision does not suggest courts are powerless to manage conflict. It suggests courts must use the right tools.
If safety is the concern, parties can seek relief through properly filed motions and petitions that give notice of the specific remedy requested. Courts can also structure timesharing exchanges through third-party locations, supervised exchanges, or staggered transfers if properly requested and supported.
If exclusive use of a home is necessary, it should be requested explicitly so both parties can address ownership, financial obligations, and the children’s living arrangements.
This is where a Tampa divorce lawyer adds value. It is not just about arguing the merits. It is about getting the procedural posture right so the court has authority to grant what is needed.
What This Case Does Not Decide
The Second District’s reversal focused on the improper entry of unpled relief. The opinion did not decide the ultimate best timesharing schedule, whether a no contact order might be appropriate if properly requested, or how the jointly owned home should be handled long term. It required the process to be corrected.
That is another practical lesson. Appellate courts often do not tell trial courts what outcome to reach. They tell trial courts what rules must be followed to reach a lawful outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Florida court enter a no contact order in a paternity or timesharing case?
Yes, but the court generally must have a properly filed pleading or motion requesting that relief, or the issue must be tried by consent with fair notice and opportunity to present evidence.
What does “tried by consent” mean in a family law hearing?
It means the parties understood the issue was being litigated, did not object to evidence on that issue, and had a fair opportunity to defend. A passing mention or vague discussion is usually not enough.
Why did the appellate court say the order effectively awarded exclusive use of the home?
Because the no contact order barred the Mother from going within 500 feet of where the Father lived, and he lived in the joint home. The trial court also told her she could not enter. That combination prevented access.
If both parties “agree” to a no contact order, is that enough?
Only if the agreement is clear, voluntary, and placed on the record with known terms. In Campana, the terms were not meaningfully discussed, and the Mother objected once the consequences became clear.
What should I do if the other side asks for relief not in the pleadings during a hearing?
Make a clear due process objection on the record, explain you lacked notice, and state you would present additional evidence if the issue were properly raised.
How can a Tampa divorce lawyer help with these issues?
A Tampa divorce lawyer can ensure that requested remedies are properly pled, noticed, and supported by evidence, and can also protect you from surprise orders by preserving due process objections and building a clean record.
Talk With a Tampa Divorce Lawyer About Temporary Orders, No Contact Terms, and Housing Rights
Temporary hearings in paternity and timesharing cases can reshape a family’s living situation overnight. Campana v. Trabold shows that when courts enter unpled remedies, the result can be reversed, but the disruption can still be significant in the meantime. If you are facing a no contact request, a return order, or disputes over who can live in a jointly owned home, a Tampa divorce lawyer can help you pursue lawful relief and protect your rights through proper pleadings, clear terms, and a record that holds up under review.
When facing divorce in Tampa, having dependable legal support is essential. McKinney Law Group offers structured, professional representation designed to help clients move forward with confidence.
Contact 813-428-3400 today.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.