Hernandez v. Hernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hernandez v. Hernandez

478 So. 2d 458, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2523, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1331

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 458 (Hernandez v. Hernandez) 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

Hernandez v. Hernandez, 478 So. 2d 458, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2523, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16732 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a decree of dissolution of marriage has become final, service of a notice, upon the attorney who represented the petitioner in the original divorce action, of a hearing to enforce or modify that decree is not adequate or proper where (1) it does not result in petitioner receiving notice of the proceeding, and (2) the attorney disclaims continued representation of the petitioner. See Moore v. Lee, 72 So.2d 280 (Fla.1954); Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 122 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

An order of contempt for nonpayment of alimony and support which lacks specific findings that the petitioner either (1) has the ability to comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so, or (2) previously had the ability to comply but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order, is fatally defective. Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a decree of dissolution of marriage has become final, service of a notice, upon the attorney who represented the petitioner in the original divorce action, of a hearing to enforce or modify that decree is not adequate or proper where (1) it does not result in petitioner receiving notice of the proceeding, and (2) the attorney disclaims continued representation of the petitioner. See Moore v. Lee, 72 So.2d 280 (Fla.1954); Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 122 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

An order of contempt for nonpayment of alimony and support which lacks specific findings that the petitioner either (1) has the ability to comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so, or (2) previously had the ability to comply but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order, is fatally defective. Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 458, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2523, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-hernandez-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack