Hasson v. Hasson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hasson v. Hasson

716 So. 2d 344, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10856, 1998 WL 552423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 1998

DocketNos. 96-4243, 97-1092 and 97-1402

StatusPublished

This text of 716 So. 2d 344 (Hasson v. Hasson) 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

Hasson v. Hasson, 716 So. 2d 344, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10856, 1998 WL 552423 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all three orders on appeal, including: 1) the order granting the former wife’s rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment brought within one year of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and based on allegations the former husband fraudulently concealed assets; 2) the order awarding attorney’s fees; and 3) the April 21, 1997, order styled: “Order Re: Motion for Contempt.” These orders are supported by evidence in the record. We write merely to note the trial court’s April 21, 1997, order neither found the husband in contempt of court, nor imposed any sanction. While the court found the husband intentionally failed [345]*345to comply with a previous court order, it excused the failure due to the husband’s mistaken belief regarding his obligations, and ordered the former husband to pay the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the former wife.

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., and FRUSCIANTE, JOHN A., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all three orders on appeal, including: 1) the order granting the former wife’s rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment brought within one year of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, and based on allegations the former husband fraudulently concealed assets; 2) the order awarding attorney’s fees; and 3) the April 21, 1997, order styled: “Order Re: Motion for Contempt.” These orders are supported by evidence in the record. We write merely to note the trial court’s April 21, 1997, order neither found the husband in contempt of court, nor imposed any sanction. While the court found the husband intentionally failed [345]*345to comply with a previous court order, it excused the failure due to the husband’s mistaken belief regarding his obligations, and ordered the former husband to pay the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the former wife.

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., and FRUSCIANTE, JOHN A., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 So. 2d 344, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10856, 1998 WL 552423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasson-v-hasson-fladistctapp-1998.