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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 12, 1985·No. No. 85-1331·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

Pincite

478 So. 2d 458 (Hernandez v. Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related