MERCEDES DUVALLON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROLANDO DUVALLON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's injunction order and contempt conviction, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence supporting the sanctions.
An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's injunction order unless clear abuse of discretion or improper ruling is demonstrated, and the burden rests on the appellant to show error.
[1] Trial court possesses wide discretion in granting, denying, or modifying injunctions, and appellate review is limited to clear abuse of discretion or clearly improper rul…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMercedes Duvallon was found in contempt of court for violating an injunction order issued by the trial court in Dade County and was sentenced to thirt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, respondent below, appeals an order of the trial court of Dade County denying her motion to vacate an order of injunction. Appellant also appeals an order of the court adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt and sentencing her to serve a term of thirty days in jail. The appeals have been consolidated for appellate purposes.
Appellant urges reversal on the following grounds. First, the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the orders appealed. Second, the court erred in adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt when the rules of criminal procedure had not been complied with by the petition and the petitioner. Finally, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the orders appealed.
Wide discretion rests in the trial court in granting, denying, or modifying injunctions. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless some abuse thereof is clearly made to appear, or unless the trial court’s ruling is clearly improper. A presumption exists as to the correctness of the ruling of the trial court, and the burden is on the appellant to make error appear. We have carefully considered appellant’s points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of appellant (in person) and counsel for appellee, and we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore the orders appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
BASKIN, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it denies appellant’s motion to vacate the injunction. With regard to the adjudication of contempt, however, I must dissent. I would reverse the Order because appellant was sentenced for indirect criminal contempt, Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977), and was entitled to due process of law, including those matters enunciated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840(a). The order lacks a recital of facts constituting the contempt of which appellant was found guilty and was entered without affording appellant an opportunity to present matters in mitigation. While I recognize that appellant’s repeated appearances before the court may have suggested these requirements were somewhat superfluous, I nevertheless believe appellant should have been afforded the letter of the law. I would therefore reverse the Order of Contempt.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reinhold Constr., Inc. v. City Council FOR the City OF Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…cess on the merits. The trial court’s ruling on a motion for injunction comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a clearly improper ruling. Duvallon v. Duvallon, 409 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellant has not met its heavy burden to demonstrate error in the trial court’s decision not to grant a temporary injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying appellant’s amended motion for temporary injunction. AFFI…
-
S. Fla. Limousines, Inc. v. Broward Cnty. Aviation Dep't, 512 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…Court of Appeal with a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Reinhold Construction, Inc. v. City Council for City of Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Duvallon v. Duvallon, 409 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1982). The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate such an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Planning Commission of City of Jacksonville, 464 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Glenn v. 1050 Corp., 445…
-
Bailey v. Christo, 453 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless some abuse thereof is clearly made to appear; and a presumption exists as to the correctness of a trial court’s ruling, with the burden on the appellant to prove such abuse. Duvallon v. Duvallon, 409 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The purpose of a temporary [*1137] injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing may be held and the dispute resolved. City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The status quo preserved…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)