Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BLAINE THOMAS HOFELING, APPELLANT, v. LAURA CATHERINE HOFELING (WITKOWSKI), 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOFELING v. HOFELING
(Aug 2, 1989)