Neunzig v. Cornett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neunzig v. Cornett

761 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 2000 WL 790774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-4178

StatusPublished

This text of 761 So. 2d 1174 (Neunzig v. Cornett) 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

Neunzig v. Cornett, 761 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 2000 WL 790774 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to petitioner seeking further relief in the trial court. Prior to hearing petitioner’s underlying motion, the trial court properly referred it to mediation, see section 44.102(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), and Kurtz v. Kurtz, 538 So.2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); petitioner alleges, however, that respondent refused to attend. There is no indication that the trial court was made aware of this alleged fact so the court would then have the opportunity to compel respondent to at[1175]*1175tend, set a hearing on the underlying motion regardless of the lack of mediation, or take other appropriate action. This ruling is also without prejudice to petitioner refiling for mandamus relief if, in the future, the trial court delays unreasonably in acting on petitioner’s motion for contempt.

WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to petitioner seeking further relief in the trial court. Prior to hearing petitioner’s underlying motion, the trial court properly referred it to mediation, see section 44.102(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), and Kurtz v. Kurtz, 538 So.2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); petitioner alleges, however, that respondent refused to attend. There is no indication that the trial court was made aware of this alleged fact so the court would then have the opportunity to compel respondent to at[1175]*1175tend, set a hearing on the underlying motion regardless of the lack of mediation, or take other appropriate action. This ruling is also without prejudice to petitioner refiling for mandamus relief if, in the future, the trial court delays unreasonably in acting on petitioner’s motion for contempt.

WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 1174, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554, 2000 WL 790774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neunzig-v-cornett-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack