FRANCISCO COLL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ANNETTE COLL, 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 vacated the criminal contempt order against the former husband for lack of personal service but affirmed the civil contempt findings and the trial court's authority to order execution of a deed to marital property through a commissioner.
A trial court may order execution of a deed to out-of-state marital property and appoint a commissioner to execute it when a former spouse refuses to do so, but a criminal contempt order must be vacated if the defendant was not personally served.
[1] A trial court may appoint a commissioner to execute a deed to marital property when a former spouse refuses to execute it as ordered in a divorce decree.
[2] A criminal contempt order in a family law matter must be vacated if the defendant was not personally served with the contempt charge.
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 intelligenceA former husband refused to execute a deed to out-of-state marital property. The trial court found him in civil and criminal contempt, ordered executi…
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 Personal Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, the former husband seeks review of post-judgment orders finding him in civil and criminal contempt, ordering execution of a deed to out-of-state marital property, ordering indemnification of the former wife for expenses related to litigation over the out-of-state property, and appointing a commissioner to execute the deed to the property which the former husband refused to execute.
We find that the vacation of the criminal con tempt order for want of personal service, see Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840, is the only-action required by this court. In all other respects, the trial court acted within its authority as to this recalcitrant former spouse. See Fraser v. Cohen, 159 Fla. 253, 31 So. 2d 463 (1947); Smith v. Smith, 498 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review denied, 509 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1987); Levy v. Levy, 483 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Geisinger v. Geisinger, 436 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); McDonald v. McDonald, 413 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 311 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order directing the ex-husband be incarcerated for criminal contempt and affirm the decree as thus modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Levy v. Levy, 483 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Nicholson v. Nicholson, 311 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Fraser v. SOL Cohen, 159 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1947)
- Geisinger v. Geisinger, 436 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- McDONALD v. McDONALD, 413 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ajax Constr., Inc. v. State, 413 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Smith v. Wanema Smith, 498 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)