Flynn v. Flynn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flynn v. Flynn

330 So. 2d 782, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1394

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 330 So. 2d 782 (Flynn v. Flynn) 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

Flynn v. Flynn, 330 So. 2d 782, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found in contempt for failure to comply with certain features of an order entered in a domestic relations case. The order related to temporary alimony and child support.

The appellant contends he is entitled to a reversal because the order failed to make a specific finding that the appellant wil-fully disobeyed a prior ruling of the trial court, citing Ratner v. Ratner, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So.2d 344. This court has reexamined Ratner v. Ratner, supra, in light of the recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Garo v. Garo, Fla.App.1974, 327 So.2d 845 (1976). We have come to the conclusion that the opinion in Garo v. Garo, supra, sets forth the ' proper test to be made in a case of this matter and, following an examination of the appeal papers, we affirm the order of contempt here under review. Anything to the contrary found in this court’s opinion in Ratner v. Ratner, supra, be and the same is hereby receded from.

Therefore, the adjudication of contempt here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.-

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found in contempt for failure to comply with certain features of an order entered in a domestic relations case. The order related to temporary alimony and child support.

The appellant contends he is entitled to a reversal because the order failed to make a specific finding that the appellant wil-fully disobeyed a prior ruling of the trial court, citing Ratner v. Ratner, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So.2d 344. This court has reexamined Ratner v. Ratner, supra, in light of the recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Garo v. Garo, Fla.App.1974, 327 So.2d 845 (1976). We have come to the conclusion that the opinion in Garo v. Garo, supra, sets forth the ' proper test to be made in a case of this matter and, following an examination of the appeal papers, we affirm the order of contempt here under review. Anything to the contrary found in this court’s opinion in Ratner v. Ratner, supra, be and the same is hereby receded from.

Therefore, the adjudication of contempt here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 782, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-flynn-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack