J.L. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.L. v. State

207 So. 3d 1028, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 363

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-3236

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 3d 1028 (J.L. v. State) 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

J.L. v. State, 207 So. 3d 1028, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 363 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners sought to quash a writ of bodily attachment based on their failure to appear at contempt proceedings, on the grounds that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to find them in contempt, and because they were not properly served with the order to show cause. We find that the juvenile court was authorized to hold petitioners in contempt. See, e.g., In re Elrod, 455 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Husky v. Safer, 419 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, we determine that the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motion to quash a writ of bodily attachment, because the record does not demonstrate that they were properly served. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(c)(2). Petitioners’ appearance at the hearing to contest jurisdiction and object based on lack of service of process did not waive service. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 921 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction). The petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, and the order of the trial court is quashed.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners sought to quash a writ of bodily attachment based on their failure to appear at contempt proceedings, on the grounds that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to find them in contempt, and because they were not properly served with the order to show cause. We find that the juvenile court was authorized to hold petitioners in contempt. See, e.g., In re Elrod, 455 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Husky v. Safer, 419 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, we determine that the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motion to quash a writ of bodily attachment, because the record does not demonstrate that they were properly served. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(c)(2). Petitioners’ appearance at the hearing to contest jurisdiction and object based on lack of service of process did not waive service. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 921 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction). The petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, and the order of the trial court is quashed.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 3d 1028, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jl-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack