HECTOR PEFAUR, APPELLANT,
v.
PILAR PEFAUR, 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.
Father's civil contempt conviction for failing to attend mediation and produce children for visitation is reversed because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over custody matters when jurisdiction was properly vested in Argentina.
A trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hold a parent in contempt for violating custody orders when jurisdiction over the child custody dispute is properly vested in the home state of the children under prior appellate decision.
[1] A trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate civil contempt for violation of custody orders when a prior appellate decision has established that jurisdic…
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 intelligence“Because under Argentinean law, the children could not be taken out of that country without the orders of an Argentinean court, the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to hold Mr. Pefaur in contempt for violating custody matters.”
Court's explanation of why trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose contempt sanctions
Hector Pefaur failed to attend mediation and failed to produce the parties' children for visitation. The trial court had previously determined that ju…
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 Child Custody Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The father in this case, Hector Pefaur, appeals a non-final order adjudicating him in civil contempt of court and ordering him incarcerated for ninety days for his failure to attend mediation and his failure to produce the parties’ children for visitation. We reverse.
Hector Pefaur argues that once this court reversed a trial court order granting Mrs. Pefaur’s 1.540 motion, see Pefaur v. Pefaur, 653 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the earlier opinion of this court in Pefaur v. Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), controlled as to the instant controversy. In that 1993 case, jurisdiction over the parties’ child custody dispute was affirmed to be in Argentina, home state of the children. Because under Argentinean law, the children could not be taken out of that country without the orders of an Argentinean court, the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to hold Mr. Pefaur in contempt for violating custody matters. Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709,109 So. 677 (1926). On remand, the trial court is, of course, empowered to impose sanctions for Mr. Pefaur’s willful disobedience of any order to attend mediation. However, on the instant facts, an order striking the pleadings and stripping Mr. Pefaur of the opportunity to defend was too severe a sanction for this violation alone. See Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollice Lafleur v. State, 661 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). (Because of the relative insignificance of the two, now-required-to-be-concurrent aggravated assault habitual offender sentences which will be followed by three consecutive sentences for life felonies, see Robertson v. State, 661 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), we do not believe it necessary to certify that question in this case.) . An argument can be made for making at least the three concurrent firearm three-year min-mans applicable to the life felonies consecutive to the five year t…
Authorities Cited
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)
- Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Pilar Pefaur v. Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Pefaur v. Pilar Pefaur, 653 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)