MICHAEL VASSELL, PETITIONER,
v.
SHANNON VASSELL, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 2004-12-14
No. 1D04-5052
ERVIN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
892 So. 2d 1128 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2004)

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.


Holding

The court held that the petition for writ of certiorari was untimely to review the contempt order and denied the petition for writ of prohibition as the lower court acted within its jurisdiction.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner sought review of a contempt order and subsequent enforcement orders, including confinement. The petition for certiorari was filed after the…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Michael Vassell petitions for a writ of certiorari or prohibition, seeking review of an order finding him in contempt and subsequent orders which enforced that order by directing his confinement in the county jail. We grant his motion for expedited review, but dismiss the petition as untimely in part and otherwise deny it.

The order of contempt was signed on October 11, 2004, and rendered by filing with the clerk of the circuit court on the following day. Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). The certiorari petition filed on November 16, 2004, was untimely to review that order, see Fla. RApp. P. 9.100(c)(1), and it is therefore dismissed in part. Because no departure from the essential requirements of law has been shown as to the order on Vassell’s objection to writ of bodily attachment and the writ of bodily attachment itself, orders which enforce the contempt order, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied as to them.

Certiorari is also denied because Vassell has an adequate remedy by appeal of the contempt order. See Remington v. Remington, 705 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Vassell has invoked this remedy by appealing the contempt order in this court’s case number 1D04-4897. Although Vassell’s motions for stay were denied by the circuit court and this court in the appeal, the legal remedy is nevertheless adequate and available to petitioner. We also deny the petition for writ of prohibition because petitioner has not shown that the circuit court is acting in the absence of or in excess of its subject matter jurisdiction, and because the writ is preventive, and the circuit court has already issued the orders of which petitioner complains. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977).

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw