Hoefer v. Hoefer

643 So. 2d 631, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8462, 1994 WL 460730
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 26, 1994
DocketNo. 94-620
StatusPublished

This text of 643 So. 2d 631 (Hoefer v. Hoefer) 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
Hoefer v. Hoefer, 643 So. 2d 631, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8462, 1994 WL 460730 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s in personam jurisdiction argument fails because it was not timely asserted, Notarfonzo v. Kline, 464 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 472 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1985), and, in the absence of a record of the evidentiary hearing below, there is no basis to reverse the appealed order. On its face, it is legally sufficient.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Notarfonzo v. Kline
464 So. 2d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
643 So. 2d 631, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8462, 1994 WL 460730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoefer-v-hoefer-fladistctapp-1994.