Romano v. Russo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Romano v. Russo

620 So. 2d 795, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6718, 1993 WL 217183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1993

DocketNo. 93-123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 620 So. 2d 795 (Romano v. Russo) 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

Romano v. Russo, 620 So. 2d 795, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6718, 1993 WL 217183 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ralph Romano appeals an adjudication for indirect criminal contempt. It appears uncontroverted that the order signed by the trial court materially differed from the court’s oral ruling at the hearing on November 20, 1992; that the appellant father did not receive actual notice of the new ruling until presented with the written order on November 27, 1992; that at that time he was unable to comply with the written visitation order as to the daughter; and that he did comply with the court’s oral and written visitation orders as to the son. We conclude that the record does not support a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the father wilfully disobeyed the court’s order. See Hunnefeld v. Futch, 557 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA1990); Scrimshaw v. State, 592 So.2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA1992); Barnes v. State, 588 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA1991).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ralph Romano appeals an adjudication for indirect criminal contempt. It appears uncontroverted that the order signed by the trial court materially differed from the court’s oral ruling at the hearing on November 20, 1992; that the appellant father did not receive actual notice of the new ruling until presented with the written order on November 27, 1992; that at that time he was unable to comply with the written visitation order as to the daughter; and that he did comply with the court’s oral and written visitation orders as to the son. We conclude that the record does not support a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the father wilfully disobeyed the court’s order. See Hunnefeld v. Futch, 557 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA1990); Scrimshaw v. State, 592 So.2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA1992); Barnes v. State, 588 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA1991).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 795, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6718, 1993 WL 217183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romano-v-russo-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack