J. IVOR CULPEPPER, APPELLANT,
v.
ZELLA CULPEPPER, 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.
In a divorce proceeding, the husband was ordered to pay alimony and attorney's fees. When he refused to comply, a rule nisi was issued to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The husband appealed from an order striking his answer to the rule nisi. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that orders in contempt proceedings collateral to the main suit are not appealable interlocutory orders under state law.
An appeal from an order striking an answer to a rule nisi in a contempt proceeding is not authorized and will be dismissed. Orders made in contempt proceedings that are collateral to the main suit and prior to a decision on the merits of the contempt proceeding are not appealable interlocutory orders within the statute.
“Steps taken in a contempt proceeding in a chancery cause growing out of the refusal of one of the parties to obey an order of the chancellor are collateral to the main suit, and orders of the chancellor made in the cowse of the hearing and determination of such collateral contempt proceedings but prior to a decision of the contempt proceeding on its merits pursuant to the rule nisi, are not appealable interlocutory orders or decrees within the purview of our statute”
Establishes the core holding that contempt orders ancillary to the main suit are not appealable interlocutory orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce suit brought by Culpepper against his wife, the court awarded alimony pendente lite of $60.00 and attorney's fees of $50.00 against Culpe…
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 Alimony Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
Section 4961 C. G. L., 3169 R. G. S., provides that appeals may be taken from any interlocutory order, decision, judgment or decree of the Circuit Courts of this State, when sitting as Courts of equity.
In this ease the appeal is from an order of the Circuit Judge striking the answer filed by the respondent to a rule nisi issued against him to show cause why he should not be held-in contempt of court for failure to obey an order requiring him to pay to defendant in a divorce suit brought by him against his wife, the sum of $60.00 alimony pendiente lite and $50.00 attorney’s fees, which had been awarded against him by previous order of the Court.
Where in a divorce proceeding an application is *392made and granted for allowance of alimony and attorney’s fees pendente lite, and the party against whom the order was made refused .to obey the order and in consequence a rule misi is issued against him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his disobedience, and the respondent to the rule nisi files an answer to such rule which is stricken by the Circuit Judge as insufficient, an appeal taken from the'order striking the answer to the rule nisi is not authorized by Section 4961 C. G. L., supra, and will be dismissed on motion of the adverse party, or by the court on its own motion.
"Steps taken in a contempt proceeding in a chancery cause growing out of the refusal of one of the parties to obey an order of the chancellor are collateral to the main suit, and orders of the chancellor made in the cowse of the hearing and determination of such collateral contempt proceedings but prior to a decision of the contempt proceeding on its merits pursuant to the rule nisi, are not appealable interlocutory orders or decrees within the purview of our statute, Section 4961 C. G. L., 3169 R. G. S., permitting appeals from any interlocutory order, decision, judgment or decree of the Circuit Courts of-this State when sitting jn chancery. See 3 C. J. 555.
T2ie appeal of complainant from the order striking his answer to the rule nisi in the contempt proceeding inaugurated against him is dismissed for the reason that the order attempted to be appealed from is not appealable within the foregoing rule.
Appeal dismissed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Tebbell, J., concur.
Bufobd, C. J., and Ellis and Bbown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1948)…rder was for coercive purposes, to-wit: Perform his obligations to his wife, relative to maintenance and support. We are familiar with the decisions of this Court, notably Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82, 107 So. 251; (See also Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799; Hamilton v. State ex rel., 148 Fla. 551, 4 So. (2nd) 660) holding that orders like the one now under study may not be reviewed by certiorari. We now recede from that position and hold that such procedure may be employed, a view which…
-
Crane v. Crane, 559 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…contempt if the attorney’s fees awarded by the court were not paid by a certain date. Because we find the challenged order is a non-final, non-appealable order, the court does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter. See Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799 (Fla.1931). See also Madden v. Madden, 558 P. 2d 669 (Wyo.1977). We decline to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of common law certiorari because we conclude the trial court’s ruling did not depart from essential requirements of…