Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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)

HARRY L. NAYLOR, APPELLANT, v. BETTY NAYLOR, APPELLEE.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

LETTS, Judge.

We grant the motion for clarification. The original opinion is withdrawn and we substitute the following:

The issue meriting discussion is whether the trial court erred in its two orders by failing to comply with the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 governs indirect criminal contempt. The procedural due process safeguards set forth therein were not complied with here. No order to show cause was issued, nor was appellant apprised of the essential facts constituting the alleged contempt, as required by Rule 3.840(a)(1). Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1977).

Because the foregoing procedural due process safeguards were not met, we reverse the orders of contempt without prejudice to proceed against appellant following the issuance of a court order to show cause predicated upon a sworn affidavit or testimony of a person with knowledge of the facts in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3.840(a)(1).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs.

ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

NAYLOR v. NAYLOR
(Apr 24, 1985)