Hofeling v. Hofeling
This text of 546 So. 2d 1176 (Hofeling v. Hofeling) 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.
Opinion
Blaine Thomas HOFELING, Appellant,
v.
Laura Catherine HOFELING (Witkowski), Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Thomas D. Koch, Clearwater, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court's order adjudicating appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt. The proceedings leading to the entry of the order were not conducted in conformity with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 in the following respects: (1) the order to show cause lacked proper predicates, see Paris v. Paris, 427 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); (2) defendant, being absent from the contempt hearing, was not afforded rights given by rule 3.840(a)(4) and (a)(7), see Bradley v. State, 420 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and (3) the order from which this appeal has been taken does not recite the facts constituting the contempt as required by rule 3.840(a)(7), see White v. Buck, 505 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Reversed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
546 So. 2d 1176, 1989 WL 86789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hofeling-v-hofeling-fladistctapp-1989.