Grabel v. Grabel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grabel v. Grabel

425 So. 2d 1220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18626

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2550

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 425 So. 2d 1220 (Grabel v. Grabel) 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

Grabel v. Grabel, 425 So. 2d 1220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18626 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion to Strike Supersedeas Bond

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The order under review requires the husband to pay, in installments, accrued increases in the amounts of child support retroactive to the date of the appellee-wife’s petition for modification. Because the order is for support and is enforceable by contempt — that it thus provides for the alternatives of payment or imprisonment— we hold that it is not a “[mjoney [j]udgment” and one “solely for the payment of money” within the meaning of the title and text of Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(1), under which posting a 115 per cent supersedeas bond effects an automatic stay pending review. See Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, (Fla., 4th DCA Case No. 81-2272, opinion filed, December 29, 1982); compare, e.g., Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Valsecchi, 385 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the wife’s motion to strike the bond posted pursuant to the rule is granted and the cause is remanded for the trial court’s discretionary consideration of an application for stay under Fla.R. App.P. 9.310(a).

Motion granted, remanded.

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

On Motion to Strike Supersedeas Bond

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The order under review requires the husband to pay, in installments, accrued increases in the amounts of child support retroactive to the date of the appellee-wife’s petition for modification. Because the order is for support and is enforceable by contempt — that it thus provides for the alternatives of payment or imprisonment— we hold that it is not a “[mjoney [j]udgment” and one “solely for the payment of money” within the meaning of the title and text of Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(1), under which posting a 115 per cent supersedeas bond effects an automatic stay pending review. See Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, (Fla., 4th DCA Case No. 81-2272, opinion filed, December 29, 1982); compare, e.g., Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Valsecchi, 385 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the wife’s motion to strike the bond posted pursuant to the rule is granted and the cause is remanded for the trial court’s discretionary consideration of an application for stay under Fla.R. App.P. 9.310(a).

Motion granted, remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 So. 2d 1220, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grabel-v-grabel-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack