DENNIS O'CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY LOUISE O'CONNOR, 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.
The court affirmed a civil contempt finding against an attorney where the trial court had jurisdiction based on actual receipt of the motion and notice, and three of four contempt items were moot due to purging through compliance.
A trial court has jurisdiction to find a party in contempt when evidence shows actual receipt of the motion and notice, even if the original combined motion and notice was lost or misplaced.
[1] In a civil contempt proceeding, a trial court has jurisdiction to render a contempt order when evidence establishes actual receipt of the motion and notice by the defenda…
[2] A contempt finding becomes moot when the contemnor has purged the contempt through compliance with the underlying order prior to the rehearing.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn appellant was found in contempt on four items. Three items were purged through compliance prior to the rehearing motion, and the fourth item regard…
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 Purging Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Even though an original combined motion and notice of hearing may have been lost or misplaced, the evidence supports a finding that the appellant, did in fact, actually receive a copy of said motion and notice and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction to render the original order, finding the appellant in contempt. It also appears that at least as to three of the four items for which the appellant was found in contempt he had purged himself by compliance with the order prior to the matter recurring before the trial court on his motion for rehearing etc. and therefore the error urged as to these items is moot. Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943); Goethel v. First Properties International, Ltd., 363 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In Re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); 3 Fla. Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 287.1
As to the fourth item, the requirement to pay certain dental bills of the children, no contempt enforcement was ever actually occasioned and none can be enforced in the future without a hearing before the trial court by the express wording of one of the orders under review.
Therefore, finding no error either in the entry of the original order of contempt, or the order on rehearing, we affirm.
Affirmed.
. We have not overlooked Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) involving a criminal contempt, but, find the reasoning not persuasive in this civil contempt matter, wherein the appellant is an attorney.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)
- Keezel v. State, 358 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- In re Est. of Philip E. Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Goethel v. First Props. Int'l, Ltd., 363 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- McCALL v. State, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Newell's Inc., 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)