Broida v. Smith
This text of 494 So. 2d 240 (Broida v. Smith) 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.
Opinion
Appellant Edith Broida, an attorney, is a beneficiary under the will of her deceased father. In defiance of several court orders she refused to deliver documents needed by the personal representative in order to administer the estate of the decedent. As justification for the act of disobedience, she contends that the trial court was wrong in removing her as personal representative and in appointing the appellee.1
Where a court acting with proper jurisdiction and authority renders an order, an aggrieved party’s failure to abide by the order may be punished by contempt even if the order is ultimately found to be erroneous. Rubin v. State, 490 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (citing Health Clubs, Inc. v. State ex rel. Eagan, 377 So.2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), appeal dismissed sub nom. Cataldo v. Eagan, 383 So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980); State ex rel. Pearson v. Johnson, 334 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Friedman v. Friedman, 224 So.2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)).
The order of contempt is
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
494 So. 2d 240, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1889, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broida-v-smith-fladistctapp-1986.