CHRISTINE FORSZPANIAK, APPELLANT,
v.
JAN FORSZPANIAK, 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.
Trial court lost jurisdiction to amend its contempt order without a motion for rehearing, so the appellate court reversed the amended orders and reinstated the original September contempt order.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter substantive amendments to an order of contempt without a timely motion for rehearing.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enter substantive amendments to an order without a motion for rehearing, even when attempting to clarify the original ruling.
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 intelligenceChristine Forszpaniak, the former wife, appealed November 1999 orders in which the trial court amended its September 28, 1999 order of contempt. The t…
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 Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Christine Forszpaniak, the former wife, appeals the November 1999 orders in which the trial court amended, and attempted to clarify, its September 28, 1999, order of contempt. She also challenges the trial court’s finding that she was in contempt. We agree the trial court lost jurisdiction to amend its September order of contempt and thus reverse on that issue. However, because there was no timely appeal of the September order, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s finding of contempt in that order,
It appears the trial court was attempting to add needed clarification to the September ruling when entering amended orders on November 18, 1999, and November 29, 1999. Because neither of the parties moved for rehearing, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter subsequent orders resulting in substantive changes to the September order. The former husband contends the amended orders contained only clerical corrections to the original contempt order. We have reviewed the orders and conclude they were indeed substantive amendments; thus, we are required to reverse and reinstate the September order of contempt. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 and 1.540.
Reversed with directions to reinstate the September 28, 1999, order. GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toomajan v. State, 785 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…properly denied as facially insufficient. See, e.g., Columbro v. State, 777 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (motion which failed to allege court records demonstrated on face defendant’s entitlement to relief was properly denied); Colosimo v. State, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (motion which failed to allege court records demonstrated on face entitlement to relief was facially insufficient). Although the trial court ignored the defect in appellant’s motion and denied it on the merits, the court failed t…
-
Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ecord established- that he did not receive those credits. He did not allege that the court records showed he was entitled to them. Thus, Gilbert’s claims regarding the ten and twenty-five day credits are facially insufficient. See Colosimo v. State, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to Gilbert to file a rule 3.800(a) motion that is facially sufficient as to all three of Gilbert’s jail credit claims. Our…
-
Taylor v. State, 939 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…on for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s order because Taylor’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Colosimo v. State, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, our affirmance is without prejudice to Taylor’s right to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence