BERTUGLIA v. Roe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

BERTUGLIA v. Roe

42 So. 3d 285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 2010 WL 2975414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 2010

Docket5D09-3615

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 So. 3d 285 (BERTUGLIA v. Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BERTUGLIA v. Roe, 42 So. 3d 285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 2010 WL 2975414 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for civil contempt. A par-

ty may not be held in contempt for violation of an order which is not clear and definite enough to provide notice of what the party is required to do in order to comply with the court’s decree. See Marcus v. Marcus, 902 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant seeking to have the trial court set a specific visitation schedule.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI