BERTUGLIA v. Roe
42 So. 3d 285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 2010 WL 2975414
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BERTUGLIA v. Roe, 42 So. 3d 285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11090, 2010 WL 2975414 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).
42 So. 3d 285 (BERTUGLIA v. Roe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Raton v. Wallace
207 So. 3d 978 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Fernandes v. Fernandes
114 So. 3d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)