JERE MAUDSLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
NICK NAVARRO, SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
A resident alien held in custody under a ne exeat writ for non-compliance with spousal support orders challenges the writ's validity and the $400,000 bond amount through a habeas corpus petition. The court denies the petition, holding that procedural defects in the writ cannot be attacked collaterally in habeas proceedings and that the petitioner failed to provide an adequate record to challenge the bond amount.
A ne exeat writ may not be attacked collaterally in habeas corpus proceedings for procedural or formal defects unless shown to be void in its underlying basis. Procedural challenges are inappropriate for collateral attack by habeas petition. The petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing the bond amount was without evidentiary basis by not providing a transcript of the hearing or other supporting evidence.
[1] A writ of ne exeat may not be collaterally attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding for mere irregularities or defects in form; such a writ can only be challenged if it is…
[2] A sworn motion for emergency relief and testimony under oath at a hearing can cure a defect in a writ of ne exeat that fails to state it was issued pursuant to a verified…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a writ of ne exeat may not be attacked collaterally in a habeas corpus proceeding if merely irregular or defective in form, but only if shown to be void in its underlying basis”
Establishes the standard for attacking a ne exeat writ collaterally, limiting habeas review to substantive voidness rather than procedural defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJere Maudsley, a resident alien, was held in custody pursuant to a ne exeat writ issued under Florida Statutes sections 61.11 and 68.02 due to his fai…
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 Writ Of Ne Exeat cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Petitioner, a resident alien, is being held in custody pursuant to a writ of ne exeat, entered pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 61.11 and 68.02, and seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The ne exeat writ arises out of the petitioner’s failure to comply with orders for the payment of support in a dissolution action. The trial court set bond at $400,000. In a five hour hearing, the trial court found that the petitioner is well able to post the bond. We have not been furnished with a transcript of this hearing.
Petitioner first argues that the writ is defective because it fails to state that it was issued pursuant to a verified complaint. However, the record before us shows that the wife did file a renewed sworn motion for emergency relief and gave testimony under oath at the hearing on this motion.
Next, petitioner argues that the writ is defective for its failure to set forth the penalty and conditions of the bond, with the surety to be approved by the clerk. Petitioner cites no authority in support of his claim that this makes the writ defective. The writ does provide a condition stating that bond be posted acceptable to the court “conditioned on his appearing personally before this court on a date to be set by subsequent order.” Although the writ does not contain the precise language set forth in Form 1.917 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the variation cannot be said to render the writ defective. Further, a writ of ne exeat may not be attacked collaterally in a habeas corpus proceeding if merely irregular or defective in form, but only if shown to be void in its underlying basis. Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 So. 248 (Fla.1901).
Petitioner contends that the writ fails to set forth definite terms, length of time of incarceration, and fails to provide for hearing in 24 hours. These are also procedural and form challenges which are inappropriate for collateral attack by habe-as petition. Furthermore, the court did conduct a hearing which included the testimony of the parties. Thus, any defect in the form of the writ appears to have been cured by the fact that a hearing was held with petitioner present. Petitioner claims that the writ calling for $400,000 bond is unconscionable, unrelated to the evidence, and beyond his means. We do not have an adequate record on which to review petitioner’s challenges as to the amount of bond. Petitioner had the burden to show that the amount of the writ was without evidentiary basis. He has not met that burden; he did not file a transcript of the hearing or show any other evidence to support his claim. We therefore deny his challenge without prejudice to his right to file a motion for reduction of bond in the circuit court.
The petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and release from incarceration on the writ of ne exeat. The petition is denied.
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham M. Schorb v. Schorb, 547 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…to challenge his imprisonment, it would have been necessary for him to file a petition for habeas corpus in the lower court or a petition for common law cer-tiorari in this court. Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 So. 248 (1901); Mausdley v. Navarro, 510 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). . The fact that Mr. Schorb unsuccessfully contested the trial court’s jurisdiction over the pension in a companion appeal supports the trial court’s decision to use a writ of ne exeat. .In this case, the requirement of a bond…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1901)