Hoffman v. Hoffman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoffman v. Hoffman

497 So. 2d 938, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2360, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10614

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

DocketNo. AX-386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 938 (Hoffman v. Hoffman) 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

Hoffman v. Hoffman, 497 So. 2d 938, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2360, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10614 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to the first and second issues and reverse as to the third. The trial court’s order provided that appellant would be summarily jailed upon the filing of an affidavit stating appellant failed to make future support payments or to pay assessed attorneys fees. The order has features of both civil and criminal contempt. As a civil contempt order, it fails to comply with the requirements of Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985), decided after the court below issued the instant order. The order also fails to comply with the requirements for criminal contempt. Ponder v. Ponder, 438 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The order is REVERSED as it relates to confinement upon filing of an affidavit of noncompliance with the court’s order, but is otherwise AFFIRMED. Future proceedings for contempt should be conducted in light of the cited cases.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to the first and second issues and reverse as to the third. The trial court’s order provided that appellant would be summarily jailed upon the filing of an affidavit stating appellant failed to make future support payments or to pay assessed attorneys fees. The order has features of both civil and criminal contempt. As a civil contempt order, it fails to comply with the requirements of Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985), decided after the court below issued the instant order. The order also fails to comply with the requirements for criminal contempt. Ponder v. Ponder, 438 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The order is REVERSED as it relates to confinement upon filing of an affidavit of noncompliance with the court’s order, but is otherwise AFFIRMED. Future proceedings for contempt should be conducted in light of the cited cases.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 938, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2360, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-hoffman-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack